South's declining relevence on the federal level

[grumbler]

the U.S Constitution is not at all the basis for the states being special entities. That'd be weird, wouldent it, as the U.S constitution was called into being by special entities, the states? 

No, it wasn't.  The states came into existence when the United States did.  The sovereign ex-colonies that ratified the Constitution became limited-sovereignty States by the Constitution.

[grumbler]

Southerners are much more in favour of small government than the rest of the nation.

Untrue.  There are many areas of the nation that favor small government even more than your nominal "Southerners" do, on average.

[KRonn]

Southerners are much more in favour of small government than the rest of the nation. Besides that, a country with seperate state militias capable of challenging the 'national' army on something approaching even terms lends itself to decentralisation and devolvement of power.

You'll find even in Massachusetts, even though the majority are big spender, big govt types, a decent percentage of people do want smaller government.  And I'll bet all across the country. So a new South might find itself getting many immigrants from other parts of the nation, but also with many Southerners who would leave because they're accustomed to or want the big govt. That said, I don't think I'd want to see a separate Southern nation, or any part of the nation split off. I'd want the country to remain united. I think we're a stronger, better nation as one than split up into two or more parts.

[Maximus]

No, it wasn't.  The states came into existence when the United States did.  The sovereign ex-colonies that ratified the Constitution became limited-sovereignty States by the Constitution.

Actually I think the Declaration of Independence did that, not that it really changes the argument.

[Barrister]

Southerners are much more in favour of small government than the rest of the nation.

Untrue.  There are many areas of the nation that favor small government even more than your nominal "Southerners" do, on average.

The mountain west comes to mind - places like Montana, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, as being more small-government-minded than the south.

[DontSayBanana]

I'd be unhappy about it personally, and legally it'd untenable, as states have the right to secede from the union as they are sovereign states, but counties are not. However, I support revision of that- I think counties should have the right to self-determination, even if they do not at this present time. Tennessee in particular is sort of an artificial marriage of counties- i've long since wished for its abolition or border revisions. Memphis is the only legitimate capital of Mississippi, you know. 

I'd be happy with the South free, even if, using that freedom, it fragmented upon itself.

Firstly, states do not have the right to secede- Congress has to let them in, and Congress has to let them out.

Berkut, I'd recommend a little light reading, yourself.  As per Amendment X, "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."

States have the right to establish their own governments, laws and militias, as long as they don't interfere with the federal machine.

[DontSayBanana]

the U.S Constitution is not at all the basis for the states being special entities. That'd be weird, wouldent it, as the U.S constitution was called into being by special entities, the states? 

No, it wasn't.  The states came into existence when the United States did.  The sovereign ex-colonies that ratified the Constitution became limited-sovereignty States by the Constitution.

Actually, they changed status to "states" with the Articles of Confederation.

[Viking]

  Texas is most definitely NOT The South.  Texas is Texas.

Should have picked the right side in that carfuffle a 150 years ago.

[grumbler]

Berkut, I'd recommend a little light reading, yourself.  As per Amendment X, "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."

States have the right to establish their own governments, laws and militias, as long as they don't interfere with the federal machine.

  You cite the portion where is reserves "powers" and in the next sentence call those powers "rights."

I'd suggest a little light reading of the Constitution, wherein you will discover no rights* are granted at all.  It only defines powers and processes (and, later, citizens).



*except, arguably, the "right to vote."

[grumbler]

Actually, they changed status to "states" with the Articles of Confederation.

Incorrect.

[Lettow77]

Utah as an advocate of small government? 

They'd be a theocracy if they could. What state wants to legislate your morality more than Utah?

[Berkut]

I'd be unhappy about it personally, and legally it'd untenable, as states have the right to secede from the union as they are sovereign states, but counties are not. However, I support revision of that- I think counties should have the right to self-determination, even if they do not at this present time. Tennessee in particular is sort of an artificial marriage of counties- i've long since wished for its abolition or border revisions. Memphis is the only legitimate capital of Mississippi, you know. 

I'd be happy with the South free, even if, using that freedom, it fragmented upon itself.

Firstly, states do not have the right to secede- Congress has to let them in, and Congress has to let them out.

Berkut, I'd recommend a little light reading, yourself.  As per Amendment X, "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."

States have the right to establish their own governments, laws and militias, as long as they don't interfere with the federal machine.

You are confusing powers with rights.

[Berkut]

It has to suck for the Lettows of the world that the South is growing today, becoming wealthier, higher standard of living, better services, and generally becoming what he hates because of migration to the South from the northern states.

Just look at Atlanta, as an example. Once the social heart of the South, and now it has a lot more in common with Boston or Denver than it does with Charleston.

[Barrister]

You guys are all wrong.

Sovereignty only transferred to the US government in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.  Up to that point the US was, legally speaking, under the sovereignty of the Crown.

And since sovereignty was transferred from the Crown to the US government, the states never entered into the picture.

[Ed Anger]

It has to suck for the Lettows of the world that the South is growing today, becoming wealthier, higher standard of living, better services, and generally becoming what he hates because of migration to the South from the northern states.

Just look at Atlanta, as an example. Once the social heart of the South, and now it has a lot more in common with Boston or Denver than it does with Charleston.

Fuckers in Georgia stole NCR from us.