-
State Sovereignty Movement
[link=http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/state-sovereignty-movement-quietly-growing/]http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/09/state-sovereignty-movement-quietly-growing/[/link]
Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states. . .
Contrary to the [link=http://www.infowars.com/increasing-number-of-states-declaring-sovereignty/][color=#000000]fantasies of some extremists[/color][/link], these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states. . .
What this movement is most similar to is [color=#000000]the [/color][link=http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.htm][color=#000000]Nullification Crisis[/color][/link][color=#000000] of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they dont have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.[/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
I have to disagree with the author on one point. The thought of secession is probably closer to the surface than some would believe. Few Obama voters probably thought the Democrats would abuse their new power so quickly and thoroughly with a drunken orgy of spending. Perhaps the Dems were counting on the post-coital bliss the US seems to have experienced to let them sneak through every bit of their S******T (dirty word) agenda. But the loyal opposition is starting to sit up and take notice.
I’m sure the Bush-haters and main-stream media didn’t think they were bringing about the destruction of the country as we knew it, but that may be just where we are headed. Thanks a lot, guys. Really. -
35 Replies
-
a novel idea, a government driven by the constitution. This has been a long time coming.
-
Well, states rights (sans secession) is likely to become a bigger issue as the Federal government tries a bigger power grab.
-
I believe that the framers of the constitution did not want a lot to power with the fed gov, that most of the power must and should rest in the hands of the states. I think that the fed gov has WAY to much power now, lets not give them any more.
Up until the time of the Civil War, the only dealings many people had with the fed gov was mailing a letter. In order to rise troops to fight the war, Old Abe had to ask, [b]ASK[/b], the states to supply troops. Weak central goverment and stronge state goverments (IMHO) is the way to go.
The people in Washington have forgotten that [b]they[/b] work for us, but think that we are here to [b]serve [/b]them, I don’t give a crap what they say about change.
I say let them keep the change, just keep their hands off my money.
-
So if the Republicans are the party of Lincoln as they say, would they start a civil war to suppress state’s rights?
I will grant there are lots of unfunded mandates coming down from the federal govt, but maybe you should think about the penalty if states ignore them…they lose various forms of federal funding. A good example is seat belt laws and federal highway dollars. Bottom line, states are too addicted to federal dollars to rock the boat too hard.
Maybe an ideologue like Sanford would try it, but most governer’s are far too pragmatic and in no position to bite the hand that feeds them.
If you think state govts are anything but a mini version of the federal govt at this point, I think you are mistaken.-
Lincoln believed in states rights. He just didn’t think they had the right to secede.
-
Guys we fought the bloodiest war in US history over this issue. States rights lost. It used to be the United States are, now the United States is. The War of Northern Aggression dealt a death blow to states rights except as given to them by the 9 Holies in Supreme Court.
-
“States Rights” in the context of the Civil War were about the issue of slavery, period. It was about the slave owners’ “rights” to own slaves AND to extend that right into the new territories like Kansas & Missouri involving the Maine compromise, etc.
It’s always revolved around that dirty little issue, slavery. When slavery ended it was about Jim Crow & when Jim was finally laid to rest it was about using the polarized white anger about the Civil Rights Act & other support of blacks & minorities, the reason why Reagan chose Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the infamous murder of 3 civil rights activists to launch his campaign by announcing his support of “States Rights.”
-
That is exactly right.
But don’t link the idiocy of slavery with states rights. Lincoln was a strong believer in states rights, but he believed in federal supremacy. The Constitution still exists, people, as does the 9th and 10th amendments.
So I am a believer in states rights…as per the Constitution. No more, no less.
-
Mistrad,
Truer words have never been spoken. People need to remember we are A Republic of States as our founding fathers delineated in the greatest Government Document ever written…. They did their best to insure we would never be run by a tyrannical government and really did a nice job of laying out the powers of the Federal government. Far too many of those in government on both sides have taken far too many liberties with the meaning of the Constituition over the years. But thank god we are still free to voice our opinions. State rights and by extension Individual rights are the bedrock of this country. We must do whatever it takes to protect ourselves from the subversion of these rights and not allow what are priveleges to be confused with rights.-
States Rights” in the context of the Civil War were about the issue of slavery, period. It was about the slave owners’ “rights” to own slaves AND to extend that right into the new territories like Kansas & Missouri involving the Maine compromise, etc.
I have to disagree, to a point, with you on this one Frumius. Slavery was just one of the (although a major one ) issues involved in “States Rights”. The southern states felt that if they had the right to join the Union, well then they had the right to leave the Union if they wanted to leave.
Lincoln him self said that if he could end the war with out freeing a slave, he would, if he could stop it by freeing some of them and leaving others in slavery, he would do that also. Although it was an underlying issue with Mr Lincoln, restoring the Union was the most importent one to him.
So, although slavery pushed it over the edge, it was the believe that the States had the Right to live as they wanted to , with-in the framework of the Constitution, without others telling the how to do it. That the states where main government with in the state, with loose ties to the fed government. And you have to remember that slavery was legal at that time under the constitution
I didn’t mean to hijack the tread, my point was mean that for the first 80 some odd years, the fed gov had little impact in peoples everyday live’s, where now it touches almost every aspect of our lives. And I don’t feel that it needs to get any “bigger”. -
ORIGINAL: Ct Dude
I have to disagree, to a point, with you on this one Frumius. Slavery was just one of the (although a major one ) issues involved in “States Rights”. The southern states felt that if they had the right to join the Union, well then they had the right to leave the Union if they wanted to leave.
Lincoln him self said that if he could end the war with out freeing a slave, he would, if he could stop it by freeing some of them and leaving others in slavery, he would do that also. Although it was an underlying issue with Mr Lincoln, restoring the Union was the most importent one to him.
So, although slavery pushed it over the edge, it was the believe that the States had the Right to live as they wanted to , with-in the framework of the Constitution, without others telling the how to do it. That the states where main government with in the state, with loose ties to the fed government. And you have to remember that slavery was legal at that time under the constitution
I have to disagree, also to a point. Slavery was THE issue. Without it there was no other issue causing the consideration of secession. You are correct in that the rationale was that they joined the Union voluntarily so therefore should have the option of leaving the Union. If I recall, that right of secession was included in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The South was afraid of being outvoted in the Senate if new territories were Free States so fought to have them Slave States. Pro-slavers went into Kansas along with abolitionists to “vote” for their particular side in Kansas & other states, and it led to a lot of violence, a pre-sage of fighting to come over the issue.
Lincoln did say that but the issue was never his to decide when South Carolina attacked Ft Sumter & announced its secession & brought along other slave states with it shortly after Lincoln’s election.
The War was really about States Right, singular, because it was all about 1 issue, slavery. The question then became whether States did have the right, Lincoln decided no.
Without slavery as the driver there was no other issue.
-
Yes, but secession and states rights are related, but slightly different issues. States rights is a constitutional right. There is no inherent right to secession. The secessionists used the only card they had, which was states rights.
Ultimately, slavery was the stain that tainted the Republic. It was going to have to be decided by blood and treasure. And it was. But I think we have to be careful blending the atrocity of slavery and constitutional rights that stand to this day.
-
raddocmed summarize it , the South called it “The War of Northern Aggression” because they felt that their rights where being trampled on by a “foreign” county. Slavery was a big part of it, but the South felt that the states had “constitutional rights ” to act as they saw fit, with-in the frame work of the constitution.
Lincoln was very careful in dealing with slavery, he was afraid that he would lose four more states to the rebellion, and even with the Emancipation Proclamation, he really didn’t free a single slave that he had any control over.
[font=”frutiger 45 light”]
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
[/font]
Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware where all slave states, it did not free any slaves in these states. The area that would soon be the state of West Virginia was specifically exempted from the proclamation. Yes, all of these slaves where freed in time, but in some parts of the county, there where still blacks in slavery as late as the end of 1865, eight months after the end of the war.
Yes, in the end the war, in part, was about freeing the slaves, but Mr Lincolns main goal was to restore the Union.
Lincoln did say that but the issue was never his to decide when South Carolina attacked Ft Sumter & announced its secession & brought along other slave states with it shortly after Lincoln’s election.
The issue that Lincoln ment was the issue of secession:
In your hands, my dissatistfied countymen, and not in mine is the momentous issue of civil war. The goverment will not assail you. You can have not conflict, withour being yourselves the aggressors
The south believe it had “rights” and was willing to fight for them, lucky for us all that they lost, because we are what we are, in part, because of the war.
The down side is the war gave the federal government more power over peoples everyday lives, powers which, IMHO, they are now miss using to force things on the many for the few.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be so long winded…………………….it is just I really don’t like the way that some people in the federal government are telling me what I “have” to do.
-
[link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans?srnd=premium]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans?srnd=premium[/link]
[h1][b]Gavin Newsom Declares California a Nation-State[/b][/h1] [b]The state is at odds with the federal government over coronavirus plans and much else.[/b]California this week declared its independence from the federal governments feeble efforts to fight Covid-19 and perhaps from a bit more. The consequences for the fight against the pandemic are almost certainly positive. The implications for the brewing civil war between Trumpism and Americas budding 21st-century majority, embodied by Californias multiracial liberal electorate, are less clear.
[link=https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/newsom-california-has-deal-for-200-million-masks-per-month-81763397587]Speaking on MSNBC[/link], Governor Gavin Newsom said that he would use the bulk purchasing power of California as a nation-state to acquire the hospital supplies that the federal government has failed to provide. If all goes according to plan, Newsom said, California might even export some of those supplies to states in need.
Nation-state. Export.
Newsom [link=https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/4.7.20-EO-N-46-20.pdf]is accomplishing[/link] a few things here, with what can only be a deliberate lack of subtlety. First and foremost, he is trying to relieve the shortage of personal protective equipment a crisis the White House has proved incapable of remedying. Details are a little fuzzy, but Newsom, according to news [link=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-07/california-gavin-newsom-200-million-masks-coronavirus-rachel-maddow]reports[/link], has organized multiple suppliers to deliver roughly 200 million masks monthly.
Second, Newsom is kicking sand in the face of President Donald Trump after Newsoms [link=https://apnews.com/f9fb8c41b7f8acc215e3ec78ca32210a]previous flattery[/link] the coin of the White House realm failed to produce results. If Trump cant manage to deliver supplies, theres no point in Newsom continuing the charade.
Third, and this may be the most enduring effect, Newsom is sending a powerful message to both political parties. So far, the Republican Partys war on democratic [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/trump-impeachment-timeline/]values[/link], [link=https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-trumps-inspector-general-purge-not-national-scandal]institutions[/link] and [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-sets-arguments-trump-taxes-financial-records-cases-could-n1127481]laws[/link] has been a largely one-sided affair, with the GOP [link=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/4/18123784/gop-legislature-wisconsin-michigan-power-grab-lame-duck]assaulting[/link] and the Democratic Party [link=https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/democrats-file-suit-against-trump-officials-over-census-documents.html]defending[/link]. The lethal ruling this week by the U.S. Supreme Courts Republican bloc, which required [link=https://twitter.com/TrudyandPierre/status/1247693757639770113]Wisconsin residents[/link] to vote in person during a pandemic that shut down polling stations, is a preview of the fall campaign. The GOP [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/trump-2020-election-legal-battle-coronavirus-162152]intends[/link] to restrict vote-by-mail and other legitimate enfranchisement to suppress turnout amid fear, uncertainty and disease.
At some point this civil war by other means, with the goal of [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-20/coronavirus-imperils-november-election-unless-democrats-act-now?sref=MsfQQ8WD]enshrining[/link] GOP minority rule, will provoke a Democratic counteroffensive. Newsom, leader of the nations largest state, is perhaps accelerating that response, shaking Democrats out of denial and putting Republicans on notice.
…
John C. Calhoun, who used the theory of states rights to defend the institution of slavery, is not generally a philosophical lodestar for liberal Democrats such as Newsom. But if Republicans (or [link=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/read-muellers-full-indictment-against-12-russian-officers-for-election-interference]foreign friends[/link]) succeed in [link=https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-20/coronavirus-imperils-november-election-unless-democrats-act-now?sref=MsfQQ8WD]sabotaging[/link] democracy in November, Calhouns theory of nullification, which posited that states have the power to defy federal law, could be ripe for a comeback on the left coast. With the heirs of the Confederacy now reigning in Washington, turnabout might be very fair play.
[/QUOTE]
-
The other way I see this going is Trump is gonna day something like open it back up. The smart governors are gonna tell him to go spit. Then the Trumpian geniuses will open up.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The other way I see this going is Trump is gonna day something like open it back up. The smart governors are gonna tell him to go spit. Then the Trumpian geniuses will open up.
The “smart” ones that have been wrong from the get-go? On every topic they touch? Weird statement.
As for Newsom, let them breakaway. Republicans win the electoral college forevermore. They beg to get back in the Republic. We shame them, let them back in with rules that stop their degeneracy and anti-American policies, and it’s a win for everyone. -
Quote from Intermittent Blasting
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The other way I see this going is Trump is gonna day something like open it back up. The smart governors are gonna tell him to go spit. Then the Trumpian geniuses will open up.
The “smart” ones that have been wrong from the get-go? On every topic they touch? Weird statement.
As for Newsom, let them breakaway. Republicans win the electoral college forevermore. They beg to get back in the Republic. We shame them, let them back in with rules that stop their degeneracy and anti-American policies, and it’s a win for everyone.
Ha, that’s a phenomenal idea. Not that it’ll ever happen. Too many Fed lands or bases, etc. owned there
very hairy -
Many other states need Cali more than Cali needs them. Imagine Mississippi if they only got back what they paid into taxes.
-
I don’t see that. California has the highest poverty rate in the country and is the arguably the most corrupt, certainly with sanctuary pro illegal/anti-American policies.
-
a couple years ago they were 14% of the US GDP. They pay a lot in but it doesn’t all go back to them. If they kept their $ in state I’m sure there’s a lot they can do on their own.
Other states, a lot of them being red states, are on the government tit. -
I’m sure Oregon and Washington would love to take on California’s Import duties.
-
[h1]Lawmaker Says Mississippi Should Succeed from Union[/h1]Mississippi state Rep. Price Wallace (R) [link]https://twitter.com/price…&ct=clnk&gl=us[/link]]said on Twitter[/link] that his state should succeed from the rest of the United States and form its own country.[/QUOTE]
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/11/mississippi-secede-election-republican/]Washington Post[/link]: Despite the misspelling, his since-deleted tweet on Saturday afternoon, posted hours after the election was called for Biden, appeared to be an overt throwback to the Confederacy in a part of the Deep South that only voted to remove the Confederate battle flag symbol from its own state flag earlier this year.
-
they should get the F out. Someone posted something like 45% of their budget is from Federal $. So get off them off the teet.
-
Chuck Todd on [i]Meet the Press[/i]: Ask yourself: Is this the 1950’s or the 1850’s? The 1950’s, when we overcame our McCarthy-era crisis and pulled together. Or, the 1850’s when the nation broke apart?
-
I dont think rural Americans can selectively secede
-
[b]Texas GOP chairman suggests ‘law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states’ after SCOTUS dismisses lawsuit challenging Biden’s electoral wins in four states
[/b]
On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed a Trump-backed lawsuit that was seeking to block Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin from voting in the Electoral College. In response to the ruling, the Chairman of the Texas GOP Allen West released a statement saying: “This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution. -
THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!
The REpublicans are the Neo-Confederate party.
UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION! SECEDE! And fly that Confederate flag along with Old Glory to show your patriotism! But which flag flies higher? -
Were in it. We just havent started shooting at each other yet.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), quote by the New York Times, when asked about if the United States was headed for a civil war.
-
“Yet…”
Civil War play-acting isn’t enough anymore.
“Some people just want to watch the world burn.” -
[link=https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1400805399788392451]https://twitter.com/Aaron…us/1400805399788392451[/link]
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3CpCeXWQAUpLD5?format=png&name=900×900[/img]
“Lt. Col. Allen West will take this opportunity to prayerfully reflect on a new chapter in his already distinguished career.”
-
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/10/24/jon-meacham-lincoln-book-review/]https://www.washingtonpos…m-lincoln-book-review/[/link]
Good enough thread —
In Jon Meachams biography, Lincoln is a guiding light for our times[/h1]
[link=https://amzn.to/3DfZ7xi]And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle[/link]Two big ideas about Lincoln and politics animate the book. The first is that statecraft, when practiced as Lincoln practiced it, is a noble art. For all the sordid pettiness of modern partisanship, and for all the venal corruptions of political life, Meachams account of the life of Lincoln aims to persuade us that leadership in a democracy is a distinctive and indispensable moral enterprise a kind of high-wire act of pragmatic compromise on the one hand and moral principle on the other. The practice redeems itself, Meacham contends, when the moral calculus nets out positive.
…
Lincolns compromises with evil were so grave that prominent abolitionists the Black leader Frederick Douglass, womens movement advocate Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Massachusetts orator Wendell Phillips among them endorsed John Fremont as a rival presidential candidate in the 1864 election. Meacham is impatient with such radicals. Lincoln, he contends, could not both lead sinners to a better world and live apart from them.
…
In the end, Meacham makes a good case for Lincolns calculus of noble compromise. Capitulation would have either preserved slavery in the United States for decades, or created a new and aggressive slaveholding empire in the Americas. After his death, even his erstwhile abolitionist critics came around: I see now the wisdom of his course, said Stanton. He was the black mans President, decided Douglass. W.E.B. Du Bois would later call him the greatest figure of the nineteenth century.Meachams pitch is that Lincolns politics of compromise and faith would serve us well today. As a biographer, he is exquisitely attuned to the resonances between 21st-century polarization and the life of a president who led a divided country a century and a half ago. He dwells on Vice President John Breckinridges courageous decision to carry out the electoral college count faithfully in February 1861, just as Vice President Mike Pence did in January 2021. With an eye toward the Trumpian big lie about the 2020 election results, Meacham observes that Lincoln pledged publicly to respect the outcome in 1864 even though success for Democrat George McClellan would have reversed emancipation. The entire book is about rebellion by a White national minority chafing against the Declaration of Independences commitment to equality for all people. Lincolns experience reverberates into our own era of anxious White voters and new threats of insurrection.
[/QUOTE]
-
You need 2 to compromise. Listened to NYT podcast, The Daily, The Runup
[link=https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000584322565]https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000584322565[/link]
Compromise by their partys politicians is exactly what these Republican voters oppose.
Megan McArdle argued that all we have to do is like each other again. Considering she writes for that Lib rag, WashPo, shes not talking to most Republicans. Liberals made them do it?
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/26/how-fix-american-division-information-bubbles/?itid=ap_meganmcardle]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/26/how-fix-american-division-information-bubbles[/link] -
Thanks dergon. I am fortunate to listen to Meacham most summers as he speaks to a group of us. I see him as a kindred spirit.
Spoiler alert. Lots of the Pelosi clan listens as well. -
I recall Biden being elected on the hope that his assurances that he could work across the aisle with his old colleagues was not just pie in the sky naïveté but could actually be done.
Where are we now? -
Biden, according to my friends in the Pelosi clan, chose to abandon his moderate stance he ran on.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
