If allowed to secede, how many states do you think would continue to support an intervention policy in the middle east? How many would continue to support israel?
On Nov 14, 7:15 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > 3 Myths About SecessionPosted byRyan W. McMakenon November 14, 2012 12:18 AM > I have no illusions about this latestsecession petition phenomenon. Nothing > will directly come of this, and the people who are behind it are mostly > people who would be singing "God Bless America" at the tops of their lungs > had Mitt Romney been elected. On the other hand, it sure has a lot of people > talking about secession, which shows that the idea of it remains an important > part of the American political consciousness. > But, in response, most of the comments coming from political hacks display a > deep, deep ignorance of the history of secession and the Constitutional > realities behind it. > In response, I thought I'd list some retorts to the basic myths which most of > the anti-secession screeds are intent on perpetuating. > 1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils > down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. > The Tenth Amendment says: "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." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, > but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according > to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the > opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession > allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't > escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you > believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the > federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend > that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to > decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than > a suggestion box for the feds. > 2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in > the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball > card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but > you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal > government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to > exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment. > 3. Secession is treason/unAmerican/craaaazy/for slavers only. Prior to the > confederacy, there were some slaveowners who got together and seceded from > their government. They were called Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If > you're opposed to the secession of 1776, then that's fine, you might be > consistent on this issue, but if you're one of these right-wing pundits who > thinks the Declaration of Independence should be read aloud every July 4, and > then says that secession is nutso, you might try actually reading that > document you profess to love. > The Declaration makes a simple argument: > 1. Humans have rights from the Creator > 2. Governments exist to secure those rights (a debatable assertion but we'll > roll with it.) > 3. When the government fails to secure those rights, we can ditch it and > start our own government. > That's pretty much all it says. If you thought that was true in 1776, when > tax rates were 1% and there was no such thing as a the EPA or the FBI or the > IRS, why is it not true now? Because we're so much more free now? And, no, > the Declaration did not say that the government is free to violate rights as > long as people get to vote on it. > The Declaration establishes that there's no such thing as treason, and a free > government requires the assumption of just secession. Lysander Spooner > explains (inNo Treason #1):Thus the whole Revolution [of 1775–1783] turned > upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, > at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government > under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right > peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the > government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, > and under all circumstances. -- 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.
