Secession from the union

[KYKevin]

20 States file to secede from the union

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secission-petitions-filed-20-states-190210006.html

Wonder how this will go?

 

[WalkingWolf]

20 States file to secede from the union

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secission-petitions-filed-20-states-190210006.html

Wonder how this will go?

That list cannot be right, NC's constitution forbids seceding from the union. The NC constitution would have to be changed, before it could.

 

[KYKevin]

LOL this article has 15 states.

http://www.examiner.com/article/15-...82238168523106":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]

 

[KYKevin]

That list cannot be right, NC's constitution forbids seceding from the union. The NC constitution would have to be changed, before it could.

I am not sure if there is anything in the Kentucky State Constitution or not. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I imagine it is just posturing.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing.

Sadly, this is spot on. The Federal Government is not going to set its cash cows free, and it certainly is not going to want competition in its own borders. (In the words of Highlander, "There can be only one!")

Does it concern anyone else that these petitions were started, not by the states, but by individuals, and in order to sign them you have to log your information with the White House? Also, the idea of so meekly asking permission to withdraw seems so...whipped.

 

[Citizen]

I am not sure if there is anything in the Kentucky State Constitution or not. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out. I imagine it is just posturing.

When they start forming alliances with other like-minded states is the time to start stockpiling and reloading.

 

[KYKevin]

Sadly, this is spot on. The Federal Government is not going to set its cash cows free, and it certainly is not going to want competition in its own borders. (In the words of Highlander, "There can be only one!")

Does it concern anyone else that these petitions were started, not by the states, but by individuals, and in order to sign them you have to log your information with the White House? Also, the idea of so meekly asking permission to withdraw seems so...whipped.

That is nothing. The CSA of Kentucky says I can become a member of the CSA here. And although I was born and raised here. I still need to give them $50 to register as a citizen. Do I have to move if I don't pay the $50? Someone is already trying to make money off this.

http://www.kentuckycsa.org/

I did get a kick out of the asking bit. I mean if they were serious they would just declare it and be done. I know they want you too. But is it like you really care about their rules if you don't want to be a part of them any more?

You can sign it at other sites I thing like Ipetitions.com How real these are I don't know.

 

[Griz]

When they start forming alliances with other like-minded states is the time to stockpiling and reloading.

Interesting. A simple, noteworthy statement that both excites and scares the hell out of me.

 

[Citizen]

That is nothing. The CSA of Kentucky says I can become a member of the CSA here. And although I was born and raised here. I still need to give them $50 to register as a citizen. Do I have to move if I don't pay the $50? Someone is already trying to make money off this.

http://www.kentuckycsa.org/

I did get a kick out of the asking bit. I mean if they were serious they would just declare it and be done. I know they want you too. But is it like you really care about their rules if you don't want to be a part of them any more?

You can sign it at other sites I thing like Ipetitions.com How real these are I don't know.

Oh, I would be very, very careful of something like that. They could be very real--a real attempt by the fedgov or a fusion center to register traitors.

And, I do mean traitors. Setting up another government or entity within the territory of an existing government without that government's approval is treason. Just have a look and see your state law has its own treason statutes defining treason against your state government (which by the way is more proof that once upon a time the states were a lot more powerful than today).

"A second branch of high treason against the state, consists in erecting or establishing or causing or procuring to be erected or established, any government separate from, or independent of the government of Virginia, within the limits thereof, unless by act of the legislature of this commonwealth..." St. George Tucker. I am sure it is just a coincidence, but legislative permission was requested for something similar when Kentucky was still part of Virginia. http://www.virginia1774.org/TransylvaniaTreasure.html

Note also that, although the federal constitution defines treason differenty, something in the constitution speaks towards the matter. The quote below is talking about admitting new states, which is another way of saying whether they will be recognized, so its not directly on point. But, clearly, forming your own state government within another won't be recognized unless it is with the permission of the existing state's legislature. This is more for perspective than proof.

Article IV, Section III: New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress...

The important thing to realize is that this is a very sensitive subject.

 

[conandan]

I don't see any way a state or group of states could do this. The government holds to much power and influence. I think the best way for the states handle it would be. ( if I remember this form my school days correctly) if 32 states I think it is can come together and call for a constitutional convention. That's where I think they could get some results. If I'm wrong I know someone will correct me, but that is how I remember it

 

[Citizen]

I don't see any way a state or group of states could do this. The government holds to much power and influence. I think the best way for the states handle it would be. ( if I remember this form my school days correctly) if 32 states I think it is can come together and call for a constitutional convention. That's where I think they could get some results. If I'm wrong I know someone will correct me, but that is how I remember it

Dangerous idea, my friend.

The original con-con jumped completely out of its boundaries. It was formed to tune up the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.* It went completely off the rails, usurped authority it did not have, and wrote the constitution we have today, minus the first ten amendments. There is a letter from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington a few months before the convention hinting that the convention would shift gears after convening--meaning, it was intentional and planned. But! Not by all the delegates, because some delegates walked out early in protest saying their legislatures did not give them the authority to write a new scheme of government. So, there was sneaky dealing going on. And, the convention omitted a bill of rights on the specious theory that the new fedgov would only have the powers stated. And, we all know how that promise worked out, even with the bill of rights we did get two years later.

And, make no mistake, were it not for the herculean efforts of men like Patrick Henry and George Mason strenuously opposing the constitution, we wouldn't have gotten the bill of rights. The Federalists--supporters of the constitution--actively opposed a bill of rights. Henry and others feared the proposed little low-power fedgov would morph into a monster that overshadowed the states and afflicted the people. The only reason we got a bill of rights was because the Federalists realized Henry and other anti-constitutionalists could derail ratification. Today, we know the anti-federalists, the anti-constitutionalists called it right about the constitution and what the fedgov would become.

There is no way to control a con-con. It can do pretty much whatever it wants, no matter how much one tries to limit it. If self-interested, power-hungry men can get themselves assigned as delegates, or the delegates can be corrupted in other ways, we may end up with something even worse than we have now. All sold to us as "for the good of the nation". Sold to a pliable populace worried about unemployment, their free health care, the economy, and most of who haven't the faintest clue about about monetary policy or what a power-center is.

Chief Justice Warren Burger had this to say almost 30 years ago:

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm



*Neat little trick there. The constitutional convention and ratification abolished a contractually perpetual union. But, when Lincoln came along, it was war to prevent southern states from leaving a union the contract for which nowhere mentions perpetual. That's how much you can trust government to play by the rules.

 

[Citizen]

I don't see any way a state or group of states could do this. The government holds to much power and influence. I think the best way for the states handle it would be. ( if I remember this form my school days correctly) if 32 states I think it is can come together and call for a constitutional convention. That's where I think they could get some results. If I'm wrong I know someone will correct me, but that is how I remember it

The states could originate an amendment. Article V directs that congress shall call a con-con whenever 2/3 of states request, but that doesn't mean the states can't do it another way. And, even if it did mean the states can't do it another way (which you can be sure will be the federal court's interpretation), the fedgov really isn't going to be in a position to argue with 3/4 of the states if they ratify an amendment proposed that way.

I think the real problem is that too many state governors and legislators have their eye on federal office, their snout in the federal trough, or supporters receiving rent* from the fedgov. All held together by the two-party system.


* a reference to rent-seeker. A rent-seeker is someone who seeks an advantage from government, for example the corn farmers who obtained ethanol subsidies.

 

[WalkingWolf]

It is a dangerous idea, absolutely no doubt. But one we may eventually not be able to avoid.

 

[conandan]

I see your point that with corrupt and power hungry people it could go really bad. But something has to be done about politicians and judges stripping away our constitutional rights. The federal government has gone way over the authority granted to them in our constitution. The only way I can see it being fixed is if enough states stand up and demand action.

I don't want to see this country fall. But something needs to happen fast or it will be to late, if it isn't already.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I see your point that with corrupt and power hungry people it could go really bad. But something has to be done about politicians and judges stripping away our constitutional rights. The federal government has gone way over the authority granted to them in our constitution. The only way I can see it being fixed is if enough states stand up and demand action.

I don't want to see this country fall. But something needs to happen fast or it will be to late, if it isn't already.

And we have to remember most states are inline with our thinking and already have state constitutions that support the people. What the states will be looking for, IMO, is restoration of states rights. The course of the states should be decided by the states.

It still could backfire though.

 

[Citizen]

I see your point that with corrupt and power hungry people it could go really bad. But something has to be done about politicians and judges stripping away our constitutional rights. The federal government has gone way over the authority granted to them in our constitution. The only way I can see it being fixed is if enough states stand up and demand action.

I don't want to see this country fall. But something needs to happen fast or it will be to late, if it isn't already.

Agreed.

I sorta suspect it might not be solveable. You'd have to convince a whole lot of people to knock off seeking something from the fedgov, like social security and medicare. Even the so-called conservatives are big law-and-order guys who believe in being tough on crime and can't see the damage of the war on drugs. Ditto for a strong military and the war on terror. As Ron Paul mentioned in the debates, it comes down to a fundamental question regarding the role of government. We have to get lots and lots of people to recognize that the problems we have with government have a lot to do with our concept of the proper role of government.

Ron Paul's campaigns took off on college campuses, so there's a start. Hopefully we can get enough people persuaded before things totally collapse. I sorta think not; but I'm not giving up on a question that important.

 

[Citizen]

It is a dangerous idea, absolutely no doubt. But one we may eventually not be able to avoid.

True. Its probably safest to assume that any opinion leader who calls for a con-con is suspect until he proves otherwise.

 

[KYKevin]

You all ever heard of the old saying. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

 

[eye95]

Our Constitution is gone. With the 47% firmly ensconced and growing in size, and with no longer being a nation of laws, not of men, the use of the ballot box to strip us of our rights and rob us of our money is permanent.

Yes, a convention could give us a far worse document than the one we are not following now, but not having a convention will allow the descent into tyranny to worsen. As of a week ago, I would have been dead-set against a convention. Now I see one as one last peaceful chance to restore the Republic. Not much of a chance, but the only peaceful one. God help us if we don't take a peaceful chance to fix things.

 

[carolina guy]

That list cannot be right, NC's constitution forbids seceding from the union. The NC constitution would have to be changed, before it could.

It has been changed numerous times..why not again, and remove that Reconstruction Era bit of foolishness. It could be argued that the NC Constitution written after the Civil War was unconscionable and not actually enforceable except by further threats of death and destruction...almost like a mafia-type agreement.