Poll: almost half of Georgia GOP think state would be better off seceding
Published: May 1, 2009
Updated 6 months ago
When asked if Georgia would be better off as an independent nation or as part of the United States, 43 percent of Republicans in the state selected independent nation, according to a poll published Friday.
A majority of Georgia Republicans — 52 percent — sided with the United States in a Research 2000 poll commissioned by DailyKos.
Asked, “Would you approve or disapprove of Georgia leaving the United States?” 32 percent of Georgia Republicans said they would approve.
State wide, just 27 percent think Georgia would be better off independent of the U.S. and a mere 18 percent would approve of secession.
The General Assembly of Georgia recently passed Senate Resolution 632 in support of the state sovereignty movement, by a vote of 43-1; an act Atlanta writer Jay Bookman characterized as accidentally threatening the state’s ties to the United States.
“In fact, Senate Resolution 632 did a lot more than merely threaten to end this country,” he wrote. “It stated that under the Constitution, the only crimes the federal government could prosecute were treason, piracy and slavery.
“’Therefore, all acts of Congress which assume to create, define or punish [other] crimes … are altogether void, and of no force,’ the Georgia Senate declared.”
“Finally, the resolution states that if Congress, the president or federal courts take any action that exceeds their constitutional powers, the Constitution is rendered null and void and the United States of America is officially disbanded. …
“Now, to be fair, the resolution passed because it was snuck unnoticed onto the Senate resolution calendar on the 39th day of the 40-day legislative session, when senators were trying to handle dozens of bills and scores of amendments. Most did not have an opportunity to read the six-page resolution, which in its description claimed to merely affirm ’states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.”
In Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry recently made comments many interpreted to be friendly toward secessionist politics, a Rasmussen poll found just 18 percent of his constituents would vote to secede from the United States were such a ballot ever put forward. Just 31 percent of the poll’s respondents believe that Texas even has the right to leave the Union.
59 comments
Printer Friendly |
Email
| Get breaking news alerts: Email/mobile |
I’m good with that. Hopefully, Georgia has the state initiative process so they can get this going. I’d be happy to sign a petition about this if it’ll help them along.
I like it, Military bases and the CDC have to move now. bring it on
Georgia is right down the road from my place and I honestly think that if the state seceded (again) no body there would notice.
All I ask is that all these right wing meatheads relocate there first. Then cut the bastards loose and let them fend for themselves for a change.
They already operate outside constitutional statutes. Their state courts only have six jurors, and it’s very corrupt in certain areas. Did they ever pass the law allowing harvest of prisoner’s organs? Ironic, since Georgia was initially a penal colony.
As a Georgia resident, I regret that my legislature spends their time fiddling with nonsense issues when we are running out of water, have no viable public transit, and the air in Atlanta is a serious problem for human life.
I expect this is all made possible by very bad education, the Diebold voting machines which make no record to recount, and support from the Mullahs, who I am sure would bring us Sharia law if secession were successful.
Please don’t send us your right wing meatheads. We have plenty here, even some who have sex with mules then run for governor on the religious nut ticket. Why don’t we move them to Iran, where ignorance and religious law are the order of the day?
Move all the wingnuts back to the Old South. Let them secede. Then do what Ann Coulter said in a slightly different context: invade their country, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.
Whoopee! Just let Mike Malloy out safely and go Horsley yourself…
Yup our US bases gotta go-they can be on their own. It’s all yours Georgians, no more federal money, jobs and oh, don’t get too upset y’all have capture the women to keep ‘em there…other states may grant them political asylum!
Yet another strawman and ad hominem attach against Southerners. You really do hate people who live in the States that once attempted to assert their Freedom don’t you? You probalbly hate me because I dare to identifyt the vile and disgusting federal government for what it is, a Marxist tyranny that rules by illegimate force of arms. Someday we will be free. Southerners have a distinctive culture and values that are quite different from those of the slaves that lick the boots of their masters in Washington DC. (Go crawl on your belly like a worm to your master; maybe it’ll give you welfare payment of money it has stolen from me and my family.) You hate us and discrimate against us because of our love of freedom and our distinctive culture and values.
However, I digress. It is interesting that you failed to provide anything that resembles a valid argument as to why your beloved slave empire has a legitimate claim in positive law to exist as a national empire. If you had evidence or argument, you would present it. Your flipant insult against Southerners reveals the vacuity of your case.
Yeah. Ok.
Go, please, go.
No, it’s not about the South trying to leave once before. It’s about stupid ass comments suggesting it.
The math is in: you’re a drain on the rest of us. We’ll be happy to send work your way so long as you can stay competitive. Maybe in 10-15 years we can talk to you about a NAFTA like agreement so you can trade with us, but until then we’ll impose pre-NAFTA style tariffs and duties.
Bye Bye
I’m not quite so willing to jump on this bandwagon. Only 27% of the population thinks like that. That means 76% of them are TRUE Americans. (Please re-read the article!)
Your assertion is invalid because it is an instance of “The No True Scotsman” fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Your ad hoc equivocation of loyalty to the illegitimate and evil Marxist regime on the Potomac as an arbitrary characteristic of what constitutes a “true American” constitutes an attempt at prevarication. This you did to toss out a Red Herring to muddy the waters and avoid your burden of proof that the USG is a legitimate national empire.
Good Idea! We could take everything the federal government has given them down to the rocks in the jettys of their harbors, then build a fence around that shithole and use it for a penal colony once again. Nothing but Jesus nutters and big assed snakes. I’d rather deal with the snakes.
See my reply to barrelhse below.
LMAO - Don’t let the door hit ya where your good lord split ya … good riddance! OH! And take TexASS with you too!!
OK by me- just take your mules and offspring with you.
My solution for the republicans would be for them to all move to another country, lets say maybe the Ukrane, revolt against that countries present government, form their own and live happlier ever after. They could do this and eliminate all people they did not agree with, they could clense their party and live in their perfect world.
You know something like the Jones guy did before he poisined everybody.
Now that would be the best of two worlds. A world for the republicans, and a world for the good people.
The only thing is if they moved to the Ukraine they couldn’t be allowed to have any weapons of mass destruction, nor be allowed to handle any real money, we’d have to give them Reagan bucks or something like that to play with…monopoly money only good there.
Real money would have to be handled by others, like the Chinese restaurant owner that won’t let the white waitresses run the till.
See my above reply to prissy.
I thought the US dollar was monopoly money? Isn’t it treated the same?
Oh goodness, what another Great Idea!!!
Please leave, and take all the other CSA states with you! You can let VA and FL decide for themselves, but as far as I can tell getting rid of the former CSA would help the USA IMMENSELY!!
Just imagine a USA where we didnt have to deal with the lions-share of the right-wing-gun-Xian Nuts. WOW, now THATS change I can believe in!
Yours in Secession Plasma,
Star¤Dagger
p.s. I’ll take Marxist over Xian any day!!!
You hate southerners and the people you dare to stand up for their fundamental human right of self-determination and self-government. Ayn Rand via her character John Galt described people like you.
“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.” - Galt’s Speech
My reply to prissy up above also applies here. Please scroll up and read.
Why do large numbers of Republicans and most conservatives hate the United States of America so much? Their contempt was so evident by their forcing two terms each of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush on the rest of us. After these two presidents life is so much harder for most of us and so much easier for the top 5%.
The Pubbies and Conservatives do not hate the United States of America. They and independents like me hate the Marxist Empire that has usurped and wrongfully supplanted the United State of America. The Federal Government now rules over us as if it were a despotic Emperor or Pharaoh of a totalitarian Empire. Consequently the United States of American no longer obtains, for the United States of America can only obtain as a Federal Republic with a Constitutionally limited central government. When the central government illegitimately and wrongfully usurped powers that rightfully belong to Sovereign States, the United States of America ceased to obtain. This is because the Law of Identity, A=A, and its corollary the Law of Non-Contradiction, A=/=not-A entail that a thing, organization, idea, action or occurrence can only exist or obtain as that which it is. The specifications for the United States of America are listed in the Constitution of the United States of America. If the organized man-made entity as a legal structure does not conform to the specification in the Constitution, then it does not obtain. The legal man-made organization as a structured entity known as the “United States” that rules over us (as if a despotic all-powerful Emperor) does not conform to the specification of the United Stats of America as listed in the Constitution. Consequently the United States of America does not exist or obtain. Therefore the Sovereign States and Sovereign Citizens of those States have no obligation to obey or honor the dictates of the Evil Marxist regime in Washington DC.
You folks have been reading again. You know that is not wise particularly when the history has been adjusted for your collar size. Marxism is dead.
These people are traitors and should be treated as such. They were the first to accuse and attack anyone who did not tow the conservative line when Bush was in power as anit American. Claiming we hated America. I guess we found out who really hates America. This garbage has been going on since the civil war. They are racists, they hate America and they want to secede. Let them secede, but not the way they want to secede. Take away the cities and run them under marshall law. No longer a state with states rights but merely territory owned by the United States of America. Let them all move to the designated remote areas of their former state that are no longer part of the USA. . See how they like being just like the Palestinians. And I would not stop there. I would be very harsh with all relations with this hostile nation that is surrounded by us. No flights in or out. Closed borders. High tariffs, maybe even treat them as they want to treat all our enemies like Iran, North Korea, etc. After all they would be no better than any of those countries. Let them reap what they sow. How long do you think it would be before they came begging to get back into the Union?
noblue> “These people are traitors and should be treated as such.”
This is not true. The only treason relative to the Constitution for the United States of America is committed by those who illegally usurp powers for the so called federal government not specifically authorized by the Constitution. An example would be the federal military forces waging war against the Sovereign States to prevent them from exercising their right to exist as a Free body politic as guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments. The assertion of a moral prescriptive in this context constitutes a Stolen Concept Fallacy. (The stolen concep” fallacy is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. ) The position from which noblue argues it that of a government with unlimited, arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens’ individual rights. This position follows only from a philosophical stance that specifically denies existence of Objective Morality. Yet noblue’s statement is an assertion of Objective Morality. The Stolen Concept here renders noblues case invalid by way of fallacy.
noblue> “They were the first to accuse and attack anyone who did not tow the conservative line when Bush was in power as anit American. Claiming we hated America. I guess we found out who really hates America. This garbage has been going on since the civil war. They are racists, they hate America and they want to secede.”
This is a strawman and ad hominem and thus invalid. The issue is not the hypocrisy of the Demopublicans or Republicrats but rather that people want their Freedom and are willing to go to law or war for it is not a reason for Marxist Tyranny. But such injustice as noblue suggests is the forte of the murderous and evil entity known as the United States Federal Government. The issue here is the illegitimacy of the Mordor on the Potomac. That is the reason for talk of secession.
noblue> “Let them secede, but not the way they want to secede. Take away the cities and run them under marshall law. No longer a state with states rights but merely territory owned by the United States of America. Let them all move to the designated remote areas of their former state that are no longer part of the USA. . See how they like being just like the Palestinians. And I would not stop there. I would be very harsh with all relations with this hostile nation that is surrounded by us. No flights in or out. Closed borders. High tariffs, maybe even treat them as they want to treat all our enemies like Iran, North Korea, etc. After all they would be no better than any of those countries.”
This is almost pure evil and is an overt admission of a desire to rule over others by force. (Noblue is a monster and will likely be destroyed by someone whom he attempts to bully. It could’nt happent to a nicer guy.) The only proper role of government is” to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.” (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech)
I had address how a State can secede above in an earlier post where I noted “There would be no need for hostilities. In article at http://mises.org/story/3427 Clifford F. Thies explained: …snip”
noblue> “How long do you think it would be before they came begging to get back into the Union?”
Personally I would oppose rejoining the old United States very vigorously. However, noblue’s fallacy here is in thinking there is a union to secede from or to rejoin. As I explained earlier, there can only be a union if and only if the United States of America as described in the Constitution of the United States of American actually obtains. That situation has not obtained for a very long time. By way of breach of contract, the United States of America has been replaced by an alien and hostile organization known as the “United States”. There can be no union unless and only if the terms and conditions described by Constitution of the United States of American actually obtain.
Consequently, the States are Free and have no obligation to obey the dictates of the fraudulent federal government.
I read Kos from time to time and I generally like him because I’m a Democrat, but this sort of polling is irresponsible. It doesn’t help unite this country which has been divided by the cynical calculations of politicians for so long. During the dark days of George Bush Jr. there were a lot of us who wanted to dispense with the south but we forbore those sentiments because we remembered the reasons why the civil war was fought, aside from human bondage, fear of disunion and it’s concomitant fear of further disunions, civil wars, massacres etc. (This was a time when everyone in D.C. read Thucydides and learned from him.) There may be political partisans in the south who have these same sort of feelings because their favorite political party is at low ebb but I think if they gave it a second’s thought and not some rapid response to a pollster they wouldn’t opt for secession. I’m less likely to go to DailyKos now as I rather like my country and don’t like to see sections of it purposely antagonized against other sections. As for the guy who keeps going on about marxism. You don’t know anything about it and wouldn’t know it if it crawled up your leg. What’s going on now is Keynesian “prime the pump” economics. It’s not ideal but it has been shown to work when times are bad. Essentially bottom up spending, it’s more like a tactic than an overall strategy. He will most likely balance the budget when the economy is corrected, which is far more than Reagan or either of the Bushes have done.
duff> “the reasons why the civil war was fought, ”
The War of Northern Aggression Against the Sovereign States that properly exercised their fundamental human right to secede from a tyrannical government and form a new government that fulfilled the basic necessity of guaranteeing Life, Liberty, Property, and Pursuit of Happiness was fought by the federal government to enslave the free peoples of the Southern States and by the men of the South to protect their lives, families, property, and States. The war was not about slavery. The United States allowed for and legislated approval of slavery. Lincoln simply wanted to extract an unfair and punitive tariff from the people in the Southern States. They correctly reasoned that they would have a better life as part of an independent and free confederation.
Slavery is an artifact of Christianity. The Christian religion not only allows for but actually endorses slavery as a social institution. The small percentage of slave owners in the south used the Christian religion as justification for that vile and evil institution. This is one reason why I reject Christianity.
Succession is good, but expulsion is better.
We are and have always been a combination of Capitalism & Socialism. The poster that’s keeps screaming MARXIST is contorting logic to create his other favorite imaginary concept: STRAW MAN. We have endured the insanity
of Reagan-Bush-Newt-Bush resulting in a Bankrupt Nation, Economically (no manufacturing base…Remember UNIONS= EVIL?…Translation: destroy the middle class & give them Beta Max’s & various toys to keep them amused what we rape the others) and now MORALLY (Conservative Torture makes us equal to the Taliban..Remember, Christ with an AK-47 or GOD IS HATE?).
Please Mr. Obama. You actions speak Hope. The Conservatives speak Slogans & Fear. Let the water drip. The ones screaming Socialism & Marxism (too bad they over killed the word Communism, LOL)i are water boarding themselves.
This thread is about Sovereign States having the legal and peaceful means to exercise their fundamental human right to walk away from a bad government that illegitimately and wrongfully suppresses basic human liberty.
tiel’s diatribe completely misses the point and constitutes a Red Herring fallacy. The issue of capitalism vs socialism has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Tiel is muddying the waters to shirk his burden of proof to show that the Sovereign States do not have a fundamental human right to exit a voluntary association. As I have pointed out else where in this thread, it is interesting that those defending the evil of totalitarianism can not actually present argument or evidence to support their assertion that the United States of America is a unified holistic single entity subject to the whims of the federal government’s many components. The failure to present valid evidence or argument to support their case screams intellectual bankruptcy.
Oh, wunderful! The same group that screamed “the completely free market will bring prosperity” and so they dismantled every regulatory scribble and then fraudulently destroyed the economy in part and piecemeal! Now they want the right to advance another idiotic “ideal” so they can destroy what they really still haven’t been able to effect yet, the peaceful society at large. Oh, life is so stupid when the terminally poor listen to their rich harangers and begin their suicide ritual in hopes that the rest of society will take pity on thier plight and let them be kings and legends in their own minds. After all, some rich idiot like Limbaugh and Rand have told them it is “right” to be as stupid as rocks, so it must be best in their own lives when it is so.
dansacramento> “Oh, wunderful! ”
Sarcastic ad hominem: your point is invalid.
dansacramento> “The same group that screamed “the completely free market will bring prosperity” and so they dismantled every regulatory scribble and then fraudulently destroyed the economy in part and piecemeal!”
This is a strawman and a lie. (The Democrat politicians are responsible for driving bad legislation that forced lenders to grant loans to unqualified people. The lenders then exercised their fundamental human right to reduce exposure to bad loans by packaging and selling them as bonds. Fraud was committed by the bond rating agencies when they rated the bonds as good when in fact they were questionable at best.) The issues at hand is the question as to whether or not the Sovereign States have the fundamental human right to dissolve a voluntary association wherein an evil and corrupt totalitarian regime rules over them by the use of illegitimate force of arms.
dansacramento> “Now they want the right to advance another idiotic “ideal” so they can destroy what they really still haven’t been able to effect yet, the peaceful society at large.”
You are wrong. If the United States of America actually obtains as described in the Constitution of the United States of America, then the 9th and 10th Amendments guarantee the Sovereign States have always had the right to walk away from a voluntary association. If the United States of America does not obtain as I have explained elsewhere in this thread, then the Sovereign States by virtue of their primary Sovereignty have no obligation to obey or honor the dictates of the vile, evil, Marxist monstrosity on the Potomac.
dansacramento> “Oh, life is so stupid when the terminally poor listen to their rich harangers and begin their suicide ritual in hopes that the rest of society will take pity on thier plight and let them be kings and legends in their own minds.”
More ad homenim and yet another Red Herring. People either have fundamental rights or they do not. If they have the capacity to reason and rationally apply a method of non-contradictory identification in pursuit of that which benefits their life and their well being, then they have morality. If a person has morality then they are able to act by a “principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)” Ayn Ran, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 93.
One of the basic rights we as rational reasoning people have is the right to form States to ensure our basic rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Further to that right is the right to engage in or terminate voluntary association. Since the United States of America is a voluntary association, any of the Sovereign States have a primary right to secede as is guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution
dansacramento> “After all, some rich idiot like Limbaugh and Rand have told them it is “right” to be as stupid as rocks, so it must be best in their own lives when it is so.”
More ad homenim and yet another Red Herring. I’ve already pointed out that Limbaugh and Hanity are advocates of corporate fascism. Notably, Rand distinguished the difference between Marxism and Fascism thusly:
“The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal . . . .
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens . . . .
Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake.” - “The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, 98.
Well dan, calling me “stupid as rocks” will never hurt me. Stick and Stones, eh? But that you have to resort to ad homenims, Red Herrings, and Strawmen while completely ignoring my arguments indicates you’ve got no valid argument or evidence to support your presupposition that the federal government is the United States of America or is somehow legitimate or that the Sovereign States do not have the fundamental human right to terminate a voluntary association.
I think that their denial of 911 Truth has driven the GOP crazy. CRAZY as in gone, brain dead. Wtf are we supposed to do with an independent Nation of Georgia?
tigress> Your comment presupposes that the federal government owns the United States of America and the Sovereign States and all of us the people. This is false. The facts of how the United States came about and what it actually is are described here
http://www.mutualist.org/id21.html
See my repost of Brian McCandliss’ comment below.
The bit about 911 Truth is yet another Red Herring and has no relevancy to the issue at hand. We are discussing whether or not the Sovereign States have the Sovereign power to exercise a fundamental human right to terminate a voluntary association. Your comment failed to address any portion of my argument. If you wish to win in this discussion you must address the argument I have presented by
Clifford F. Thies with title “Secession Is in Our Future” at http://mises.org/story/3427
by means of valid argument and presentation of evidence.
To correct confusion attendant to States Rights issues, the Constitution and the war of Northern aggression to prevent the Southern States from exercising their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America to exit the second contractual agreement between the States and form a new Confederation, I recommend a couple of books.
The South Was Right! (Hardcover) by James Ronald Kennedy
http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-James-Ronald-Kennedy/dp/1565540247/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 (American Political Thought) (Hardcover) by Forrest McDonald
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0700610405/ludwigvonmisesinst
Joseph R. Stromberg reviews the later title here: http://mises.org/story/541
Stromberg therein notes that “McDonald, with keen-eyed clarity, concludes that the states were sovereign during the revolution and that, absent any recorded dissolution of themselves as separate politically organized peoples, they remained so under the Articles of Confederation and even under the Constitution of 1787.
By ratifying the new charter, they delegated certain powers and functions upwards to a stronger general government without at all giving up their ultimate sovereignty and political existence. Such “a compact among peoples of different political societies… was undreamed of in political philosophy” (p. 9, my emphasis). ”
This means that the notion put forth by militant US nationalists that the formation of the first Continental Congress in 1765 to address the Stamp Act Tax crisis did not gestate or form a union of the 13 Colonies. The Colonies were formed and organized under “the concept and reality of “divided power,” or imperium in imperio (the18th-century phrase). Contesting the right of Parliament to govern them in all things, colonial writers had to argue that each colony enjoyed a separate arrangement with the King of England. McDonald seconds these colonial spokesmen: “they had thirteen real compacts in the form of charters that gave them existence as political societies” (p. 9). Thus the “nationalist interpretation” of the American Revolution and Founding “is untenable” (p. 10). Therefore the Holistic view of United States of America’s “national life rests on a series of lies.”
Therefore, the fact that the Sovereign States simply seceded from the first Confederation despite the Articles of Confederation’s Article 13 that specifically stipulated the Confederation to be a perpetual union is proof positive that the States did then and do now retain their ultimate sovereignty and political existence. The central government owes its existence to the States. The States do not depend upon or exist contingent to the central government. That which is created, the central government, cannot be greater or more powerful than that which created it, the States.
Brian McCandliss at this url http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=2879&cpage=2#comment-2073 posted an interesting comment on the issue of State Sovereignty and their concomitant Right of Secession. He typed:
” Brian McCandliss said:
Again, it doesn’t matter what the Founders and Framers said after the Constitution was ratified– it only matters what the people of each state manifested regarding the Contitution itself, since they were the sovereigns of each state, and only the express will of a state’s sovereign power, can relinquish that state’s national sovereignty.
Unless one can point to such an express manifestation of intent, then there is simply no argument that the states surrendered their respective sovereignty as separate nations: but that rather, each state simply condescended to form a federal republic of sovereign nations between them, under which each state by definition remains fully sovereign.
The main proponent today of “consolidation theory” is Yale Prof. Ahil Reed Amar, who writes that “In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence.”
Of course this is entirely non sequitur, since national sovereignty does not pertain to amending constitutions within a federal republic of sovereign nations, but rather to supreme rulership over the particular nation in question. As Vattel explains in The Law of Nations, sovereign nations (i.e. “states”) may unite themselves together by a perpetual federal union, while each yet remaining individual perfect nations. Indeed, Vattel wrote that “[t]hey will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.”
This was the original context by which the states agreed to co-exist, under the Constitution—and accordingly, the Constitution nowhere manifests any relinquishment of sovereignty by any state. Rather, like the Articles of Confederation before it, all of the Constitution’s restrictions on state powers, were strictly voluntary (i.e. “delegated”) restraints of sovereign power by each state; and accordingly, the Constitution did not confer any federal power to coerce a state to obey its rulings through armed force (as would be the case if it formed a single nation.
However since each state’s sovereign people nowhere manifested any such intent to so consolidate themselves into one nation– and in fact manifested quite the opposite intention– then there can be no case for claiming that the United States is one single nation, but on the contrary is an illegal empire existing in occupation of many sovereign nations, under the false guise of a national republic.”
Brian McCandliss claimed on the same message board that he had previously wrote and posted the following essay.
CHAPTER ONE–THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AMERICAN FEDERAL SYSTEM
http://www.mutualist.org/id21.html
This is significant in that the claim of the nationalists is that the United States of America is a national unified empire. But that is not true because the States never gave up their primary Sovereignty upon joining the present limited federal union.
“fxinfidel” you are now officially the smartest kid in class. Oh, my, you have certainly taught us a lesson, haven’t you? I should never read anything but your screeds again, since you have all the answers. But I find it interesting that in all the blah blah blah, and ad hominem and red herring and diatribe and dismissive arrogance you miss something fundamental in all of this: people are people, they live their lives, and they do their work, and the feel what they feel. Along the way they create a civil contract so they can live with and near each other. Some guys (yes, only guys at the time) got together and decided to write up and dandy Constitution to form a construct to have all these collections of people work as a nation. Multiple wars, thousands upon thousands of lives have been lost, untold money spent to keep this union together. I, as a Georgian, am sickened by the action these reactionary morons have taken, clearly in support of their own prejudices, greed, and lust for the power they feel was taken from them in a free election. That is how I FEEL, and that is how they FEEL, and by golly, as much as I will defend their right to FEEL how they will and SAY how they feel, it is also my right to FEEl that they are anti-American, because what they advocate is the destruction of my country. I do not give a good happy damn what Ayn Rand or Karl Marx (or Karl Rove for that matter) have to say, this is a country made up of 50 states, and the people also have the RIGHT to defend their country from enemies foreign and domestic, and all that I see and hear in all of this is a threat to my country, and frankly, to my state. By enemies. I am sick to death of being told if I don’t like the way things are in the US to get out. NO. YOU get out. You’re so damn smart, take yourself, and that twisted minority of people who agree with you, and YOU go find some land somehwhere to steal from someone, and scratch out a better utopian society where you can all be rich except for your servant class, who I am sure will be just grateful as hell to be working for YOU. My belief is that most Americans, once they know where their next paycheck and meal are coming from, are more than happy to defend their country and try to fix it’s ills from the inside, do the hard work, and not take the coward’s way out and spit on the Constitution and the flag because they aren’t getting their way. Take your toys and go home, if you can find it. I will defend myself and my state, and my country from the likes of YOU till there is no breath left in my body.
It is patently clear that you want nothing more than a return to what was for the last 8 years. It is clear that to you, republicans can do no wrong (make that neo-cons, I indeed, make that distinction). So go, go create a society like that. Take those rich self-described plutocrats with you. Sadly, you will most likely find that once there, they won’t let you in. Because there is no honor there. There is no idealism there. No national pride (yep, I get it, it’s only an idea, an invention, but it is also the underpinnings of this country - ideas and ideals). Only self-serving greed. But you won’t mind licking their boots, now will you? After all, the “free market” will have dropped you into that position, so you should either “make a choice” to not be poor any more (that’s all poverty is, I hear, just bad choices on one’s own part), or accept your glorious role as bootlicker in chief. Watch out, though. boots hurt when they kick you. Also remember, once you untether yourself from the US, you will no longer be one of us. You will no longer have the rights and privileges you seem so certain are being taken away NOW, when, as you know in your heart of hearts, they left in the last few years. Some of us want them back. You want to overturn the whole mess.
Do pease be so kind as to fill us in now on the benefits and attributes of anarchy and insurrection, and we will do our own homework and see how much of it applies to you.
Begin your snotty reply now.
AMEN! I’m just as ticked off, but not as eloquent. Well played!
I’m not sure a lot of people understand history very well.
‘The Soviet Union’s collapse into independent nations began early in 1985. After years of Soviet military buildup at the expense of domestic development, economic growth was at a standstill. Failed attempts at reform, a stagnant economy, and war in Afghanistan led to a general feeling of discontent..’
13 states created the Union willingly… why would they not be allowed to leave if they feel the Federal Government is abusing the power they have been allotted in the Constitution? Hopefully the people in Washington will wake up before it’s too late. I fear the United States empire is economically unfeasible just as the Soviet Union’s was.