How about secession instead of returning to the Constitution?
Submitted by atrickpay on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 10:15
A lot of people on here seem to be in a trance about "returning to the Constitution."
My question: why not focus on secession instead? That is, why not get away from the federal government that the Constitution created?
Why? Well I think this is a numbers game... getting politicians into office that would follow the Constitution would take massive electoral victories in 2010 and 2012. If the number of people eligible to vote is approximately 150 million...we would need at least 51% of that.
Secession, on the other hand, could be done in NH for example with support by at least 51% of their population of 1-2million.
Why not work in the area where we have a realistic chance? Work smart not hard!
Good point
If we got back to the constitution it would be a temporary fix.
Would a state have any claim to the constitution if it seceded and was brought back into the Union by force? (Theoretical question, since our current claims to the constitution are ignored.)
One of the few sane posts
... on what to do, if anything at all.
As far as returning this Socialistic mob (American People) back to a Constitutional Republic is like getting a Ron Paul elected. Not going to happen. R3volution yes, but probably Socialistic.
Does anyone think Benjamin Franklin was just whistling "Dixie" when he told Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, when she asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."
When is the last time you heard this country called a Republic ?
Just another fabricated
Just another fabricated quote. If not, well... Ben Franklin IS a liar. A "republic" is ran by the people! Not a centralized group. Now, how are the people in control, when only a centralized group had the powers of taxation, law making, and complete control of the Supreme Court!
How?
The pledge of allegiance. We
The pledge of allegiance. We won't have a socialist revolution because it will be obvious by the time the system collapses(or if it does, I could see the elites bringing in Ron Paul Republicans to fix things like in Atlas Shrugged) that socialism is the problem. Our choices will be Fascism or Constitutionalism.
Ventura 2012
German Fascism
... was closer to Russian communism than to any other non-communist system (National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). BTW, Adolf says when he comes back, "No more Mr. Nice guy!"
My point is the nationalism
My point is the nationalism that fascism brings, not the economic intricacies. Of course, communism in Russia was nothing like any theoretical communism.
Ventura 2012
I'm not in a trance, but I
I'm not in a trance, but I would like to see a federal government based on a strict interpretation of Constitutional principles. If this were done, the change in government and indeed in the larger society would be profound.
Your point I perceive to be a part of a continuum...if we don't succeed with the original goal, others need to be examined. Some here might consider secession to be impractical, but I think it is a possibility that also should receive consideration. And if a state like NH really *did* secede, we'd be seeing pretty quickly just how many people take the ideas of liberty seriously. I'd expect a goodly number to be busily packing their bags for the move to a land of freedom :)
May we all live in interesting times...
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. ("I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude"). Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787.
Secession Not Practical Now
I've nothing against the concept, but it's now unconstitutional (Texas v White). Before the "Civil War" there had been no ruling by the Supreme Court.
If any state seceded the Feds would simply jail those responsible by sending in the military. Those who violently resisted would be guilty of treason as defined by the Constitution (bearing arms against The United States).
Only by amending the Constitution is secession possible. The states have the constitutional power to achieve it, providing they have the will.
First amend the Constitution, then secede. The Constitution could be amended to allow the expulsion of a state(s) as well.
Making the USA a true federation, what it was in the beginning, would work just as well.
There was a Fox News video
There was a Fox News video on YouTube a while back (it was probably linked here at the DP but I doubt I would be able to find the link) where various state legislators were interviewed regarding the secession movement. I'm pretty sure the legislators interviewed were from Ohio, Indiana and Texas but the story referenced other states as well.
I recall the legislator from Texas stating that Texas will be enacting legislation which will absolutely forbid the State from recognizing any federal legislation that is not constitutional.
I believe that is the right step, definitely good to go this route ahead of any possible secessions.
Imagine if Texas did pass such a law and began enforcing it. I would very seriously consider moving to that State and I'm sure many others would consider doing the same as well.
Once other States learn that by protecting the rights of the people that they will be supported by those people, the movement (to respect the Constitution) will grow and expand beyond Texas.
OK, Texas says federal legislation is unconstitutional,
and the Supreme Court of the United States says it is. Guess who prevails?
State sovereignty
should suffice...
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2009-05-11...
.................................
http://www.enduswars.org/
http://peaceoftheaction.org/
Probably the Only Solution
Unfortunately, there is no way this country is returning to a Constitutional government. There are not enough people who (a) understand the role of a limited government and (b) care enough to do anything about it. It will never happen.
Although the odds of secession are slim too, it's probably the only solution.
People dont have to
People dont have to understand to be manipulated into voting the way we want. ex. wave the flag and say founding fathers and the bloodthirsty neo-con voters will come running, as long as we have worked our way up the GOP ladder enough to deprive them of a warmongering option in the primaries. Take the conservative dems who are just ignorant but not evil along with the independants, and we have probably 60-70%.
People don't have to care, because its those that vote and do care that run the show.
Ventura 2012
No one expected it to happen
No one expected it to happen to the USSR, but it did. Perhaps secession will not happen by design but by circumstance.
Secession: It's what's for breakfast.
I've never really agreed with the people who urge us to "Take back Washington, D.C.!" or "Take back Congress!"
My response is, "Take it back? I never wanted it in the first place! Keep it!"
Freelance copywriter/editor who gets the "freedom message"!
Visit: http://www.DavidBardallis.com
Freelance copywriter/editor who gets the "freedom message"!
Visit: http://www.DavidBardallis.com
I hear ya
I never would have supported ratification of the Constitution if I was alive back in the 1780's.
You would have been hung
You would have been hung from a tree in 1777 for being a tory, like your master Lew "Revolutionary War was Unjustified" Rockwell.
Ventura 2012
I raise you one.
I would have never supported the constitution. Period.
Allow me to intercede for the life of this Tory, 2bfree...
Pray, delay the hanging. I wish to meet with you again on Mr. Jefferson's birthday, to give you your proper raiment of tar and feathers.
A quote from a long-ago thread, 2bfree:
"Yeah, you're all about freedom as long as it requires someone to rule over you. Which is the exact opposite of freedom. We should have just stayed in England."
Ah, yes, another one who wouldn't have fought the American Revolution.
See you on April 13th.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. ("I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude"). Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787.
They should build a great
They should build a great wall around it and keep them in there.
atrickpay: I agree with you in "spirit"
I know what you are saying here
I think secession is just as un-certain as constitutionalism.
In the short to medium run -- people would sell their left ear-lobe to avoid that.
Why do we have to move from where we are (toward Constitutionalism or away from it)?
Counter-Economics effects a gradual economic-individualist cleansing without violence.
You only need 10,000,000 to change all of America -- this is not un-realistic a number to attain. We have 2,000,000 waiting in the wings.
Secession requires "leadership" and that's not "anarchist" is it?
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
counter-economics
Please tell me more about this. What is it?
LimeLemon: Counter-Economics
It begins by realizing that the individual is not the worker, not the property owner, not the voter, and not the student -- these people have no rights.
The individual is the consumer -- it is the consumer (ultimately) that drives our desire to work and learn -- the worker is a consumer, the owner is a consumer, the student and voter are all consumers; but the consumer does not have to to be any of those.
The only inescapable activity is consumption; consumption of: knowledge, tools, products, services, food, water, oxygen, and resources -- we consume 24hrs of the day.
Consmptions means: "to use and to waste"
Coming to that realization we then know that to "vote" is to "abdicate authority" -- We can't however, deny that we have no consumer-authority.
Workers - Producers - Students - Bums all seek the ballot box -- that's how collectivist steal power from the consumer (or individuals); so to engage in ballot boxing is to "abdicate" authority -- no matter how good or noble the intentions.
We must think then -- how do we regain power?
How do we "support" the destruction of the individual (make a list):
1) Voting
2) Consumption
3) We pay taxes
That's it -- that we vote, we pay taxes, and the way we consume.
Can't win by voting (because that's collectivist - futile - hijackable)
So -- we go to consumption and taxes
#1 Buy Local (services and products -- breaks link to corporatism - lobbyist)
#2 Buy Organic Foods (local as much as possible - breaks link to corprate argiculture and Monsanto lobby)
#3 Develop Passive Income Streams (don't report all of your income) -- Get to the point where you are 80% under-the-table.
#4 Hire handy men (under the table) or do the work yourself
#5 Save all "wealth" in gold-silver -- Any "wealth" held by Wallstreet aids Wallstreet and the money machine (regardless of commodity). If you can't bury it in the back yard don't buy it
#6 Start purchasing co-ops and storage clubs -- store "real" commodities and fuel
#7 Bring back the Granges
If 10,000,000 people in the 80K and above bracket did this it would break Lobbyist, the Fed, and Washington's back.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Thanks
Here's a post by Kinsella along the same lines.
Counter-economics (aka agorism) is dangerous
I don't want so start selling marijuana for example. Dangerous. If I get caught I'll be put into slavery (ie. "go to jail").
---
"The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure, is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood." - William Cooper
counter-economics is not "necessarily" agorism
Slavery is 100% taxation
You are in 80% taxation -- you are 80% enslaved!
You don't have to sell marijuana to be an agorist, hahahaha.
I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist (not 100% so) so, Agorism is means to get us into A-Cap and that's not my goal.
A-Caps believe the "individual" is the property owner (most rights are attributed to him) -- Whereas Mises believed the consumer was the individual and I agree 100% with that.
There are no "enforceable" rights in a free-society -- not by army or court or police. Self-Rule means self-protection and some level of lawlessness.
The wild-wild-west was not as murderous as it is today.
I want everyone wearing two guns (one concealed) and a samurai sword on their back. For crime and high fashion reasons, smile.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Please read this article
Please read this article about a conceptual 50-state secession plan... very thought provoking!
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle485-20080921-03.html
---
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark.
---
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark.
Thx
I'll check it out.
secession ready states
The whole secession idea needs to be relooked at from a geopolitcal perspective. The real likelyhood of anything happening in this diretion is slim, however if it did, the best place to have it take place would be at the extremities of the Union/empire. Places like Alaska, Hawaii, have no other borders with states and wouldn't disrupt interstate commerce in the case of an independent state. Texas would be next as a Southern extremity, as would Maine (an Eastern extremity). Florida as well, but highly highly unlikely. Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii (and Puerto Rico) all already have secessionist movements and it wouldn't take much to push the populace over in those areas. I really feel for it to have any shot it would have to be done in one of these states.
Add New Hampshire to that
Add New Hampshire to that list. NH, like Maine, has seacoast and a border with Canada. I think NH also has many economic catalysts that could produce a vibrant sovereign-state if the movement for secession gained momentum here.
...BUT, there's the Maine Problem. If NH secedes, Maine would be cut off from the federal union, but there are ways to deal with this:
a. Maine could also secede
b. Allow open transport through NH and collect tolls
c. Blockade Maine as a bargaining tool
If 51% of the people in NH have brass balls, this can happen.
---
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark.
---
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils." -- General John Stark.
The only reason I am for secession
Is so that we can immediately get rid of the ten thousand plus federal laws quickly besides that I dont see much profit in secession.
Are you a CIA agent? See:
Are you a CIA agent? See: Civil War.
Ventura 2012
You're assuming there will be the same response
by the federal politicians. I doubt that would happen again myself.
I guess your grounds for
I guess your grounds for those doubts are the patriot act, domestic terrorist watchlists, and Waco?
Whenever I hear someone bring up the dangerous idea of secession, I question their motives. All this Constitution bashing is getting old.
Ventura 2012
no Civil War in America's history
Because winners get to write the histories, the losers are often denigrated and mischaracterized.
The southern secessionists had no designs on the central government, they were trying to escape it. What is so often miscalled the "Civil War" was in fact a war of secessionists and is better called:
The War Between the States
The War Against the States
The War for Southern Independence
The War of Northern Aggression
or
When the North Invaded America
Gaia Vindice
Sic Semper Tyrannis
True, but thats besides the
True, but thats besides the point. I might call it the "War to keep feudalism alive on the North American Continent"
Ventura 2012
secession
Decentralization is a step in the right direction.
http://www.vermontrepublic.org
http://www.texassecede.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_secession_pr...
I'm not much on history, but
I'm not much on history, but didn't the whole friggin South try that way back when, and failed? Forget what it might say in the Constitution, do you really want another war? That would play right into the hands of the NWO. We have to use their tactics, infiltrate their ranks, and and take back our republic piece by piece. That being said, enough states considering such actions does send a strong message.
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." -- Patrick Henry
Why would it play into the hands of the "NWO"?
?
Because then they'd have a good excuse to kill people
I think some of us spend so much time engaged in the movement that we forget there are over 290,000,000 people in this coutry who don't share our beliefs.
Easy way for them to
Easy way for them to accomplish their goals...pass nationalized healthcare. Cut off care to the elderly, you know.,..the ones who spent the least amount of time sucking at the teats of socialism, and who might actually remember a thing or two about individual liberty. Once they have those inconvenient souls out of the way, the march of progressivism can continue unimpeded.
Mr. Lawson, I disagree that it's all about sheer numbers. The ones who most vigorously promote their beliefs are going to be the winners. Do you honestly believe that the rest of the country shares the ideology of the far left? Most people are asleep (I know you above all know this) and it's our job to wake them up.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. ("I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude"). Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787.
reply
Well I say lets test the waters. See how they react. I doubt they would. Why? Because most Americans don't like the idea of killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan...how are they going to take it when it's on their own soil?
Exactly. That's why I think we have pretty much no shot of getting decent electoral success + "returning to the Constitution". That's why I advocate secession.
While I am a firm believer
While I am a firm believer in decentralization and advocate panarchy, I can foresee the media and government acting in concert to dehumanize any who would participate in succession. Once the enemy is dehumanized, they are a ripe target for elimination.
I think that a more fruitful path lies in education. If people were willing to take on the responsibility of learning the law and our history, they would be much better citizens and sovereigns in whatever form of government that we have. If they understood that their acceptance of government franchises and participation in the corporate structure of government subjected them to its corporate rules, and resulted in their abdication of natural rights and repudiation of the limitations placed on the government by the constitution, this would go much further than a handful of martyrs being demonized as terrorists and silenced.
How the government enslaves the ignorant with franchises.
http://sedm.org/Forms/MemLaw/Franchises.pdf
republic
reply
Sure. But is that likely? I don't think so? I think its rational for people to be ignorant of politics, history, economics, etc.
It's the problem that was pointed out by the "Public Choice" economists (benefits concentrated, disadvantages dispersed).
There is no way the federal government would allow it...
I think they would stop at nothing to squash any type of revolt. Maybe I'm wrong and they don't have the stomach for it.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
Well,
if the federal politicians won't allow that...then how likely is it that they would allow the federal government to stay within the confines of the Constitution? Seems even less likely to me.
Why? With secession of a state or two, they at least can maintain their bloated over-constitutional government.
I say no because
I see the NWO liking this idea. The Constitution was a thorn in there side so that must mean it has merit.
It's not a thorn in they're
sides. They don't have a problem taking your labor by force, now do they? They don't have a problem forcing you into compliance to have what should be basic unalienable rights.
They merely use the constitution as an ILLUSION. To perpetrate a lie.
It's what got/gets the bloodline in the door, and the constitution keeps everyone busy trying to get the right guy elected, the right people in office, when the whole time, this is a fallacy, it keeps you from looking at the bigger picture. There is no way to have gov, without force. It IS force.
The elites who favor political globalism
would seem to me to hate the idea of secession! Why? Because they are political globalists--they favor increasing political "centralization" and "globalization". Decentralization (ie. secession) is the exact opposite that.
Also,
I think it is important to note that political globalists don't like competition in the area of nation-states...that is after all what they want to get a one world government--so the "problems" of there being competing nation-states will be lessened (and I and I guess to them, they eventually want the nation-states to be eliminated).