Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
Big RR
Posts: 10945
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Big RR »

Lord Jim wrote:
Jim--I tend to agree with you on the likelihood of this happening, but if it did, I also don't think there would be much support to militarily reincorporate them into the union.
Oh, Big RR, I can't imagine you being more wrong....

As George F. Will once correctly observed, "The question of 'States Rights' was settled at Vicksburg..."...

The principle of "Once in never out" though not technically enshrined in the Constitution, is pretty well established...
don't get me wrong Jim, we fought a war and had a significant portion of the young men in this country die to settle that very thing, but if it disintegrated to the point where a state seriously considered leaving and attempted to o so,I really don't know what the reaction of the country would be. Would people be motivated to fight a war to keep them or just say good riddance. sure, a president could start a military response, but if a good portion of the population was opposed to it, (s)he might have to back off. Yes, there were divisions in the mid 19th century, but many saw the union as something worth fighting for; I'm not sure we'd get anywhere near the same response now, let alone a time when the divisions run that deep..

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by dgs49 »

There are many thriving countries in this world that have nowhere near the population,territory, or wealth that Texas has. The idea that Texas couldn't "make it" as an independent state is ridiculous.

There is a fairly respectable school of thought that Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason because his defense was going to be that nothing in the constitution prevented the states from seceding. The a.g. (Or whoever) was uncertain of winning that argument.

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Andrew D »

Go with them, dgs49.

Good luck with that ....
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 12714
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Scooter »

No one claimed they couldn't make it on their own. Only that they wouldn't be missed much if they left.

And if the U.S. and Mexico decide to wall it in on all four sides (Texas are big on border walls, after all, so shouldn't have reason to protest), we'll see how well they do under autarky.
White privilege is a thing.

What goes on in a woman's uterus is none of your fucking business.

Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It's not pie.

rubato
Posts: 13813
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by rubato »

If Texas actually seceded, in 50 years a wetback would be someone fleeing into Mexico from Texas.

I'd pay them to go.




yrs,
rubato

liberty
Posts: 3494
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by liberty »

Lord Jim wrote:I wish I could make a buck off of these nimrods..

Let's pose the question:

The chance that a state that is a part of the United States would be permitted to leave the United States is:

A. Zero

B. Less than zero

C. If you are insane enough to believe this could happen, you must be licking the hallucinogenic sweat glands of Arizona desert toads...
Any US president that would allow a state to secede would deserve impeachment, removal from office and the contempt of the people. However secession is not treason or a crime provided the secession is done by democratic vote of the people. The people of each state are sovereign and have the right to act as sovereigns; if you feel differently you should support an amendment to the Constitution. Of course to a fascist the only thing that matters is brute force.

I think what is fueling this is a lot fear for the future in the country; you know rats fleeing a sinking ships. My own company is retrenching; I suspect they foresee a bad economic future for the country. I pray they are wrong, but it is enough to make one worry. I wonder how much money is being converted to gold and or is fleeing country as we sit in front of our computer screens.

Also I don’t think that a single state would have a dog chance in hell of pulling off a legal secession provided that a US president was dumb enough to allow a vote in the first place. Now an illegal secession (insurgency), that is a diffident kettle of fish.
Last edited by liberty on Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

Big RR
Posts: 10945
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Big RR »

Any US president that would allow a state to secede would deserve impeachment, removal from office and the contempt of the people. However secession is not treason or a crime provided the secession is done by democratic vote of the people. The people of each state are sovereign and have the right to act as sovereigns; if you feel differently you should support an amendment the Constitution. Of course to a fascist the only thing that matters is brute force.
Well, I guess you then think the civil war was prosecuted on the northern side by a fascist state to illegally and forcibly bring seceding states back into the union?

liberty
Posts: 3494
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by liberty »

Big RR wrote:
Any US president that would allow a state to secede would deserve impeachment, removal from office and the contempt of the people. However secession is not treason or a crime provided the secession is done by democratic vote of the people. The people of each state are sovereign and have the right to act as sovereigns; if you feel differently you should support an amendment the Constitution. Of course to a fascist the only thing that matters is brute force.
Well, I guess you then think the civil war was prosecuted on the northern side by a fascist state to illegally and forcibly bring seceding states back into the union?
No, states have a right to secede and the federal government has a duty to prevent it. What would be fascist is the prosecution of the losers provided that the resistance was authorized by a sovereign government. Cities, counties and territories cannot legally secede they are not sovereign governments. That is my opinion.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 6902
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Sue U »

liberty wrote: No, states have a right to secede and the federal government has a duty to prevent it.
Uh, what? That can't make sense no matter whose universe you live in.
GAH!

User avatar
Joe Guy
Posts: 10316
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:40 pm
Location: Redweird City, California

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Joe Guy »

Meanwhile, in other news.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by dgs49 »

Ironically, Texas and all the other states originating such petitions would be quite content if the Federal Government merely devolved itself back to the role described in the Constitution. And enforced the fucking immigration laws as written. There is no need to secede, just re-establish the government as it was originally conceived.

Virtually all of the gripes emanating from "flyover country" pertain to grotesquely unconstitutional initiatives out of Washington, and the confiscatory taxes that are required to support them.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 12714
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Scooter »

Except for all of the agricultural and energy industry subsidies that they scarf up at the trough, those they refuse to give up. Funny that they never complain about the words "soybeans" and "petroleum" not appearing in the Constitution.
White privilege is a thing.

What goes on in a woman's uterus is none of your fucking business.

Equal rights for others does not mean less rights for you. It's not pie.

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Grim Reaper »

dgs49 wrote:There is no need to secede, just re-establish the government as it was originally conceived.
The Constitution is not some inflexible, iron-clad, document that never changed in meaning, and had no ambiguity from which confusion could arise. It's a document written by human beings, who realized that the world would not always exist as it did in their time, and thus made room for interpretation and expansion of powers as the world changed.

And I have a simple question here that is still awaiting your answer.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by dgs49 »

Please, please, please point out to me the part where they provided for "expansion of powers as the world changed."

Looks to me like the defined the powers pretty explicitly and said everything not specifically delegated to the Federal government was reserved to the states and the people.

Please show me, I'm dying to see it.

Grim Reaper
Posts: 944
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Grim Reaper »

There's nothing in there about the Air Force, yet no sane person would call it "unconstitutional". Your definition is solely based on things you don't like. Because you have yet to show how anything you don't like is actually against the constitution. You made the claim, you can't back it up. A rational person would make new claims, but you keep banging the same broken drum.

And again, stop being a coward and answer a simple question.

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Andrew D »

dgs49 wrote:Looks to me like the defined the powers pretty explicitly and said everything not specifically delegated to the Federal government was reserved to the states and the people.
No, it does not look to you like the Framers did any such thing.

You know better.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 6902
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Sue U »

Andrew D wrote:
dgs49 wrote:Looks to me like the defined the powers pretty explicitly and said everything not specifically delegated to the Federal government was reserved to the states and the people.
No, it does not look to you like the Framers did any such thing.

You know better.
He knows no such thing. You may have shown him better, but he has successfully fended off education for decades.
GAH!

User avatar
Guinevere
Posts: 8292
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:01 pm

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Guinevere »

Sue U wrote:
Andrew D wrote:
dgs49 wrote:Looks to me like the defined the powers pretty explicitly and said everything not specifically delegated to the Federal government was reserved to the states and the people.
No, it does not look to you like the Framers did any such thing.

You know better.
He knows no such thing. You may have shown him better, but he has successfully fended off education for decades.
He never got a legal education in the first place. Not one where he retained anything, anyway.
“Women belong in all places where decisions are being made.“ ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg

liberty
Posts: 3494
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by liberty »

What other purpose could the tenth amendment have if not to limit the power of the federal government?
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Don't let the door hit you in the ass

Post by Andrew D »

liberty wrote:What other purpose could the tenth amendment have if not to limit the power of the federal government?
Yes, the Tenth Amendment states a limit of the powers of the US government. For that matter, it also states a limit on the powers of the State governments.

But the first point is that the Tenth Amendment REstates those limits.

Those limits are already in the Constitution. Those limits would exist, even if the Tenth Amendment had never been enacted.

The second point is that the Tenth Amendment tells us nothing about what powers the US government has, and what powers the US government does not have. It tells us nothing about what powers the State governments have, and what powers the State governments do not have.

It tells us that the US government has only the powers which it has.

That is not constitutional rocket science.

It tells us that the State governments do not have the powers which they do not have.

That is not constitutional rocket science either.

And one does not need the Tenth Amendment to reach either of those dizzyingly obvious conclusions.

The hard part comes when:

--> The US government claims that it has the power to do X;

--> Someone claims that the US government does not have the power to do X; and

--> Someone else (typically the US Supreme Court) must decide whether the US government does or does not have the power to do X.

The Tenth Amendment is of no help in answering that question.

If the US government claims that it has the power to do X by virtue of the Commerce Clause, then the answer to whether the US government has the power to do X depends on the meaning of the Commerce Clause.

The Tenth Amendment gives us no guidance. The Tenth Amendment tells us that if X is within the US government's power pursuant to the Commerce Clause, then the US government has the power to do X. And the Tenth Amendment tells us that if X is not within the US government's power pursuant to the Commerce Clause (or some other clause, if someone makes a claim based on some other clause), then the US government does not have the power to do X.

But the Tenth Amendment tells us nothing about the fundamental question:

Does the US government have the power -- pursuant to the Commerce Clause or any other clause -- to do X? Or does the US government not have the power -- pursuant to the Commerce Clause or any other clause -- to do X?

The Tenth Amendment tells us nothing -- and I mean, quite literally, nothing -- which answers that question.

To answer that question, we must look at the Commerce Clause. And for simplicity's sake, let's assume that no one has made any claim based on any other clause.

If the US government has the power, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, to do X, then, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, doing X is one of the powers delegated to the US.

And if the US government does not have the power, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, to do X, then, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, doing X is not one of the powers delegated to the US.

As to whether the US government does or does not have the power, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, to do X, the Tenth Amendment is entirely irrelevant.

Serious question on my part: Am I making this clear? Or am I just running on about it? Or both?

-------------------------
Edited to correct "party" to "part".
Last edited by Andrew D on Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

Post Reply