Interesting. Most lack the spine for Alaska or the fortune to live in Hawaii- have you ever seen Doris Duke's home? I was eager to arrive in a sunken tiled tub in a Moroccan styled home with its grand carved doors and interior minaret here in flyover country. No one since has adorned it like my parents who leased with an option from a German who made his fortune in train tanks- he went back to Germany prior to WWII. A deadly mistake.//Iowa can make up its ethanol revenue with gay marriage fees.// It took the lives of 600,000 to address this question once before. My thought is if you have had a roof, food, health you are a darling of history- of course convicts can claim the same.
On Apr 28, 11:38 am, 1 <[email protected]> wrote: > Secession Is in Our FuturebyClifford F. Thies > Posted on 4/28/2009 > > Can states secede? There are three levels on which this question can be > answered:theinalienable right of secession,theinternational law of secession, > andtheUS law of secession.All three say yes.The Inalienable Right of > SecessionThe Declaration of Independence of the United States of America > invokes the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and are > endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that governments > are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the > consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these > rights, it is the right no, it is thedutyof the people to alter or abolish > that government. > To say governments were formed to protect the rights of men would be > historically incorrect. Almost all governments were formed by ruthless men > exerting their will over others through the use of force. Some governments, > over time, evolved toward the rule of law, perhaps only because their rulers > saw that this would sanction their own continued enjoyment of the wealth that > they possessed. In some instances, this evolution involved one or more > "revolutions" in which those who were governed were able to better establish > the rule of law. > The language of the Declaration should not be construed as an argument about > the historical origins of government but, rather, as what would be true and > just to an enlightened person, namely, that as persons and as communities of > persons, we have the right and the duty to alter or abolish governments that > become abusive of our rights. As Benjamin Franklin once put it, "Rebellion to > tyrants is obedience to God." > The concept of an inalienable right of secession was not original to the > American Revolution. It can be traced to the scholastics, to Reformation > politics, and to the most ancient Greek and Hebrew writings. Without going > into a dissertation on the subject, let me simply point to the flag of the > state of Virginia, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson. It depicts a > female warrior (Athena) standing atop a slain tyrant (Zeus). > According to legend, Zeus, the greatest and most terrible of the gods, was > supposed to be the god of law, yet he was himself lawless. When he heard that > he would sire a child who would destroy him, he swallowed his wife whole to > prevent it. But the child grew within him and then burst from him fully > grown. This child was Athena, the goddess of victory, liberty, and peace. > And, she did indeed slay her father. It should be easy to see, in this > legend, how the rule of law might be established from a government formed > through the use of force. > Now, does a massive increase in taxes, in spending, and in the federal > deficit constitute such an abuse of the rights of men as to justify secession > under the doctrine of an inherent right to secede? I don't think so. Ask me > about the inherent right to secede when the government starts to restrict our > freedom of speech, to shut down the independent media, to confiscate our > guns, and to take away our children.The International Law of SecessionThe > international law of secession is in the process of emerging at this very > time. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all > people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people > should long be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further > corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated > status, such as by being citizens or subjects of a country from which they > are alienated. > Now, as a practical matter, consideration has to be given to whether an > identifiable people exist in an identifiable place. At least, this is the > current thinking. But, if these several elements come together: an > identifiable people in an identifiable place that grouse under the > subjugation of the larger nation, there is a growing consensus that this > people and place can be severed from the larger nation, even by rebellion and > with support from outside the larger nation. East Timor, Eritrea, and the > devolutions of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia (including the ongoing > situation in Kosovo) illustrate the development of the international law of > secession. > Turning to the United States, it is now well established that the country > consists of so many "red" (Republican) and "blue" (Democrat) states, along > with a few "purple" (battleground) states. Even in a so-called landslide, > like 2008, only a few states "flip" from Republican to Democrat, and these > states go from close Republican to close Democrat. Furthermore, the whole > purpose of elections has become to decide whether Democrats get to raise > taxes on Republicans while adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax so as to > minimize the impact on themselves, and whether Democrats get to force > acceptance of gay marriage onto Republicans or whether Republicans get to > force unwanted pregnancies onto Democrats. In other words, there no longer is > any pretense of federalism in which domestic policy is left to the states of > the Union. > Under these conditions, it can be argued that, were either party to fall into > permanent minority status, and the other party to establish hegemonic control > over the so-called federal government, the people in the other party could be > said to be an alienated, identifiable people in an identifiable place, and > could assert a right to secede under emerging international law. > The argument for secession under emerging international law might be > strongest for Alaska. Geographically, the place is disjoint from the other > states of the Union, making it an identifiable place. Furthermore, under > their state constitution's explicit right of privacy, possession of small > amounts of marijuana is a right; yet, the so-called federal government > imposes the costs of its war on drugs onto the citizens of Alaska. > Furthermore, the people of Alaska have been long frustrated in developing > their natural resources because of the opposition by majorities in the "lower > 48." Indeed, as a separate nation, Alaska might be the freest place in the > world, with zero taxes because of its wealth in natural resources, > well-established civil liberties, and a socially tolerant, live-and-let-live > attitude among its people. > Following Alaska, states such as Florida and Texas would have the next best > arguments for secession under international law, since they are themselves on > a seacoast and their secession would not much disrupt the road, transmission > wire, pipeline or other infrastructure networks of the other states. > States such as Utah and Kentucky, being landlocked "enclaves," would have a > relatively weak argument. On the other hand, it would be relatively easy for > these states to join with other states that have already seceded or are in > the process of seceding, and form a patchwork of independent republics that > develop compacts to facilitate interstate travel, commerce, water flow, > transmission of electricity, and so forth. > "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, > composed of indestructible States." > – Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court inWhite > v. TexasUS Law of SecessionThe US law of secession is thought to have been > decided by the US Supreme Court inWhite v. Texas, following the Civil War. > The actual matter to be decided was relatively insignificant. The Court used > the occasion to issue a very broad decision. Chief Justice Chase, speaking > for the Court, said,The union between Texas and the other States was as > complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original > States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through > revolution or through consent of the States.Notice that the second sentence > appears to totally contradict the first sentence. > The first sentence I just quoted invokes words such as "perpetual," and in so > doing may create the impression that the Supreme Court decreed that no state > could ever secede from the Union. But, on careful reading, the relationship > between Texas and the other states of the Union is merely "as indissoluble as > the union between the original States." In other words, Texas, having been a > nonoriginal state, has no greater right of secession than do the original > states. As to how states might secede, the second sentence says, "through > revolution or through consent of the States." > As to why a state might secede, either through revolution or through consent, > Chief Justice Chase presciently discusses the 9th and 10th Amendments to the > US Constitution, which reserve to the states and to the people thereof all > powers not expressly granted to the federal government, and that the design > of the Union, implicit in the very name "United States," is the preservation > of the states as well as of the Union:the preservation of the States, and the > maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of > the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the > National government.The so-called United States of America ceases to exist > when the political majority of the country attempts to rule the entire > country as a nation instead of as a federal government. In such a > circumstance, the "indestructible union of indestructible states" of which > the Court speaks is already dissolved. > As to whether "Texas" continued as a state and, furthermore, as a state of > the United States during the period of rebellion, the Court made clear that > it continued as both although certain rights that normally accrue to states > of the United States fell into suspension. Presumably, if Texas had seceded > "with the consent of the States," Texas would have been able to free itself > from the Union described as the "United States," and could have considered > joining into another Union described as the "Confederate States." > Also presumably, if the Confederate States of America had been able to impose > their will onto the other states of the United States through force or had > been able to induce the other states to consent, Texas and the other states > of the Confederate States could have seceded from one Union and joined into > another. But, the outcomes of wars are problematic.How Do "the States" > Consent to Secession?The wide-ranging discussion of the Court in White v. > Texas contains a lot of intriguing and obtuse comments. How, for example, do > "the States" give consent to the secession of a state? The Constitution, as > the Court says, does not envision such a thing, and does not provide a > process. What if the legislatures of "the States" sent delegates to a > convention that drafted a constitution for a more perfect union, which would > take effect for those states that ratified it, providing that at least a > two-thirds majority of them did so? For those who were not homeschooled, it > may be necessary to point out that this was the process through which the > Constitution of 1789 was created and through which eleven states seceded from > the union provided by the Articles of Confederation, leaving Rhode Island and > North Carolina as the only two states in that prior union. (Those two states > eventually also seceded from the prior union, thereupon making it a nullity, > and joined into the new union.) > While the Constitution of 1789 required the secession of 9 out of 13 states, > does this mean that a supermajority of the states would be necessary for > consent? It seems to me that a supermajority would not be necessary, but only > a simple majority, for a US version of what is called the "Velvet Revolution" > in the former Czechoslovakia, now the Czech and Slovak Republics. In that > country, dissolution involved nothing more earth shattering than a bunch of > accountants who scurried about the country, totting up the value of the > assets of the national government that would fall into the possession of each > succeeding government so as to determine how to fairly apportion the national > debt to the succeeding governments. Of course, in that case, both succeeding > governments transitioned to membership in the European Union, guaranteeing > the free flow of goods, labor and capital between them and the other members > of the E.U., as well as guaranteeing certain civil liberties and democratic > processes to the persons in each of the succeeding republics. > Looking at the electoral maps of the United States of recent presidential > elections, it appears that the potentially disaffected red states of a > socially liberal, economically socialist blue nation constitute a nearly > compact, self-contained block from the southeast coast to the Rocky Mountain > west, plus Alaska. Indiana and Ohio appear as two purple states jutting into > an otherwise blue Great Lakes region. > New Hampshire is a purple state in a deeply blue New England (but, being a > coastline state, it would not matter much that it was not connected by land > to other breakaway states). Contrariwise, Colorado and New Mexico are two > purple or blue states in the Rocky Mountain region that might wind up as > enclaves of Old America amidst the independent republics of New America. > Of course, once it becomes clear that a majority of the states and > specifically those that are the most productive are seceding, the remaining > states of Old America will have to consider their options. Would they want to > bail out the corporations, the unionized public-school teachers, municipal > workers, and the UAW, and the bankrupt states of California and New Jersey, > among others, when the burden falls much more heavily onto them? > A state like Minnesota, with a solid work ethic, which tends to vote > Democratic in presidential elections, might think it could do better with New > America than with the moochers of Old America. Even Iowa, where they bury > farmers only three feet deep nowadays, so they can still get their hand out, > will have to weigh the pros of the ethanol subsidies they receive versus the > cons of the taxes they will have to pay to subsidize everybody else. > Possibly, once the rush gets underway, the only "state" that will be left in > Old America will be the District of Columbia.[VIEW THIS ARTICLE > ONLINE]_______________________Clifford F. Thies is the Eldon R. Lindsay Chair > of Free Enterprise at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
