http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/11/gone-wind#comment-236213
Some of my favourite selections:
QuoteUltimately, "the South" per (2) is a declining and reactionary element. They will continue to play a role, and their decline (which they sense better than most) will drive them to greater heights of fervor, but their day is done. In less than a generation, they will be the US equivalent of the Le Pen voters in France, or the CSU in Germany: angry revanchists with appropriate representation, but never again in a position of national leadership. (And thank their God for that!)
QuoteWhat will likely happen is that southern states themselves will become less "Southern" over time, thus hollowing out the potential for the kind of regional cohesion that made national politicians track south even if they were from Connecticut, as George H.W. Bush was.
Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and Texas are the vanguard. It's not that they will be like California or Massachusetts, but more like Ohio, that is, more representative of the nation as a whole, and it will not be a reliable strategy to pretend otherwise.
I agree with all of this, and it is depressing. Perhaps democratic principles will never lead the South to autonomy. If that is the case, than perhaps a Third Way should be considered? arguing fiercely with the missus about all this, who rather sticks her head in the sand and says things arent as bad as I speculate, and that a Southern renaissance is conceivable within our lifetime.
'perpetual' union indeed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg17.imageshack.us%2Fimg17%2F2848%2Fcachebordomnet.gif&hash=01254255d60fd95fd0bbb6c738e59ffa216f1518) (http://img17.imageshack.us/i/cachebordomnet.gif/)
About time. Reconstruction is finally seeing some results!
As whimsical as it may be, Space is the only thing that gives me meaningful hope.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 11, 2009, 11:42:18 PM
As whimsical as it may be, Space is the only thing that gives me meaningful hope.
:lmfao:
An entire generation of Confedetards basing their perverse fantasies on StarCraft. Hilarious.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 11, 2009, 11:46:50 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 11, 2009, 11:42:18 PM
As whimsical as it may be, Space is the only thing that gives me meaningful hope.
:lmfao:
An entire generation of Confedetards basing their perverse fantasies on StarCraft. Hilarious.
Sample size: 1.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 11, 2009, 11:09:43 PM
I agree with all of this, and it is depressing.
Then maybe you should stop contributing to the trend.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on November 11, 2009, 11:49:08 PM
Sample size: 1.
To be fair, I don't think the current generation of confedetards is much but racist, lazy-ass Starcraft fans. It would make a lot of sense.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 12, 2009, 12:11:01 AM
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on November 11, 2009, 11:49:08 PM
Sample size: 1.
To be fair, I don't think the current generation of confedetards is much but racist, lazy-ass Starcraft fans. It would make a lot of sense.
Well they are southerners. South Koreans at least.
Don't you have a class you should be teaching, Jaron?
How to find a job serving nachos out of your sombrero?
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 11, 2009, 11:09:43 PM
If that is the case, than perhaps a Third Way should be considered?
Depends on what you mean by Third Way.
I wonder how many Southerners do feel they want a separate nation? I feel the Civil War marked a turning point, and one where the entire nation would move on from after enormous hardship and war. I see the South as a part of the nation as much as any other region, regardless of the tough past. While the South suffered most in the ACW, the entire nation suffered as well. I'm glad that the nation was able to remain whole following the Civil War, since this is a much stronger nation as one.
Quote from: KRonn on November 12, 2009, 10:03:47 AM
I wonder how many Southerners do feel they want a separate nation?
Aside from Lettow, none. :P Seriously, I doubt more than 0.5% or so.
Cut off their crazy checks and federal benefits, and the number drops I bet.
QuoteWhat will likely happen is that southern states themselves will become less "Southern" over time, thus hollowing out the potential for the kind of regional cohesion that made national politicians track south even if they were from Connecticut, as George H.W. Bush was.
Strange I thought George H.W. Bush moved to Texas which is not Southern but Texan. :cool:
:yes: Texas is most definitely NOT The South. Texas is Texas. :alberta:
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 11, 2009, 11:09:43 PM
or the CSU in Germany: angry revanchists with appropriate representation, but never again in a position of national leadership. (And thank their God for that!)
:lmfao: Angry revanchists? WTF? And the CSU is currently in a position of national leadership, being part of the government coalition.
Quote from: Caliga on November 12, 2009, 02:27:14 PM
:yes: Texas is most definitely NOT The South. Texas is Texas. :alberta:
Confederacy= South, West begins at El Paso. ;)
Texas is what the South wishes it could be.
Quote from: Berkut on November 12, 2009, 03:07:44 PM
Texas is what the South wishes it could be.
Full of steers and queers? :huh:
Oh, its greater than .05%, Caliga. Given the right conditions, it could reach 30% or so. For now, I think it poops around 1-2%.
Still, i'm going to have the last laugh. While my country may be consigned to chains because of its lack of a national consciousness, I will do a great service for my country. Look for me to go down in history- I will do something to further the cause of Southern independence if it is the death of me.
Promise?
If I stay in this. country, brain, I promise. But there's always emmigration to derail me from serving my nation, unfortunately. And the depressing obligations that come of being a familied man, later in life.
Still, I think I can awaken national consciousness in my state. We may eventually hope for a role akin to the PQ.
Cats :)
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 12, 2009, 04:29:44 PM
If I stay in this. country, brain, I promise. But there's always emmigration to derail me from serving my nation, unfortunately. And the depressing obligations that come of being a familied man, later in life.
Still, I think I can awaken national consciousness in my state. We may eventually hope for a role akin to the PQ.
You may eventually hope for another dinner roll, but it doesn't mean you'll be getting one. :(
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 12, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
Oh, its greater than .05%, Caliga. Given the right conditions, it could reach 30% or so. For now, I think it poops around 1-2%.
You got a source for that?
It's believable if the poll includes 12 year olds.
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2009, 05:32:01 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 12, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
Oh, its greater than .05%, Caliga. Given the right conditions, it could reach 30% or so. For now, I think it poops around 1-2%.
You got a source for that?
kraft foods.
Yeah, BB, I do.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qcZn6f0CEnAC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=poll+favouring+southern+independence&source=bl&ots=5VRDUcss-A&sig=tS-7SyNCZGmOlmxajldR_yBPG4M&hl=en&ei=P5L8SqTwEMWHnQfG1_iNBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
the Odum institute regularly polls 12% favouring independence if it could be peacefully gained. Another book I recently read, I think it was called the psychology of sectionalism, found around 8%. Of course, I undershot these results to be more believable for my languish audience, but thank you for asking. :)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to see the actual poll question, and find out who the "Odum institute" is, before accepting those numbers.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 12, 2009, 04:29:44 PM
If I stay in this. country, brain, I promise. But there's always emmigration to derail me from serving my nation, unfortunately. And the depressing obligations that come of being a familied man, later in life.
Still, I think I can awaken national consciousness in my state. We may eventually hope for a role akin to the PQ.
If you, the South's most militant patriot, is willing to emmigrate, then what does that say about the potential for Southern consciousness?
What wedge do you think you can use to promote a national idea in the South, without referencing Southern history?
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2009, 06:11:48 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to see the actual poll question, and find out who the "Odum institute" is, before accepting those numbers.
Okay, the Odum institute appears on first blush to be legit.
However the actual question used is going to be hugely important. Remember you're talking to a politically aware Canadian - the topic of how to word poll (or referendum) can vary the response you're getting quite a bit.
I can imagine 12% of southerners saying something positive about southern independence, but that is quite a bit different from saying "the south should succeed from the union".
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
I can imagine 12% of southerners saying something positive about southern independence, but that is quite a bit different from saying "the south should succeed from the union".
Frankly I'd be happy if they'd succeed in the Union.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 12, 2009, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
I can imagine 12% of southerners saying something positive about southern independence, but that is quite a bit different from saying "the south should succeed from the union".
Frankly I'd be happy if they'd succeed in the Union.
Thems fightin' words, yanquee.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 12, 2009, 06:50:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
I can imagine 12% of southerners saying something positive about southern independence, but that is quite a bit different from saying "the south should succeed from the union".
Frankly I'd be happy if they'd succeed in the Union.
:face:
I know, neil, and it bothers me, but sometimes I cant take it and wish I was elsewhere.
As for the wedge? ideological and ethnic differences with the rest of the country, something to foster a feeling of resentment, (like the current exclusion of Southerners from representation, if it endures..) religion? the disparity between northern and southern income could be used if an economic depression hits hard enough.
And hey, BB? Your sort of lame, I mean. You continually insist race drives my nationalism, and are awful dismissive with things inconvenient to you. There are more appealing canadians.
Quote from: Barrister on November 12, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
Okay, the Odum institute appears on first blush to be legit.
However the actual question used is going to be hugely important. Remember you're talking to a politically aware Canadian - the topic of how to word poll (or referendum) can vary the response you're getting quite a bit.
I can imagine 12% of southerners saying something positive about southern independence, but that is quite a bit different from saying "the south should succeed from the union".
From what I can tell from the data archives provided by Odum, the question was this:
Finally, do you agree or disagree that: The South is better off as part of
the United States than it would be as a separate country.
If you look at the cross tabs, it looks like the people who tend to disagree that the South is better off as part of the US are more often to be found in one of the following groups:
18-24 years old
Other races (non-white, non-black)
Democrat/Independent
Non church goers
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2009, 12:40:43 AM
If you look at the cross tabs, it looks like the people who tend to disagree that the South is better off as part of the US are more often to be found in one of the following groups:
18-24 years old
Other races (non-white, non-black)
Democrat/Independent
Non church goers
Looks like Lettow really is Jaron.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2009, 12:40:43 AM
If you look at the cross tabs, it looks like the people who tend to disagree that the South is better off as part of the US are more often to be found in one of the following groups:
18-24 years old
Other races (non-white, non-black)
Democrat/Independent
Non church goers
Hmm. Was this a regional or national survey?
My south rose again last night.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 12, 2009, 08:31:18 PM
I know, neil, and it bothers me, but sometimes I cant take it and wish I was elsewhere.
As for the wedge? ideological and ethnic differences with the rest of the country, something to foster a feeling of resentment, (like the current exclusion of Southerners from representation, if it endures..) religion? the disparity between northern and southern income could be used if an economic depression hits hard enough.
And hey, BB? Your sort of lame, I mean. You continually insist race drives my nationalism, and are awful dismissive with things inconvenient to you. There are more appealing canadians.
Lettow, what is it that you do want? I understand you want Southern independence, but then what kind of Southern nation do you envision? I'm assuming a govt that has much less central control? Along with other issues you speak of here, like getting back to religion, more equality for Southerners, though I don't see how Southerners aren't equal.
I fear that the US is about the last place of lower govt controlled and run nations, though we're not far behind with govt, and catching up rapidly anyway. So sadly, I don't know where anyone could go anymore to be in a nation of low govt control and activity.
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2009, 09:09:15 AM
Lettow, what is it that you do want? I understand you want Southern independence, but then what kind of Southern nation do you envision? I'm assuming a govt that has much less central control? Along with other issues you speak of here, like getting back to religion, more equality for Southerners, though I don't see how Southerners aren't equal.
I fear that the US is about the last place of lower govt controlled and run nations, though we're not far behind with govt, and catching up rapidly anyway. So sadly, I don't know where anyone could go anymore to be in a nation of low govt control and activity.
It's hard to be sure if he really is a fan of small government, considering he's citing League of the South, who are advocating Christianity as a state religion (just ask England, Germany, and Italy how well that's worked out for them).
Kronn, I want the South to have a government based on the principles of the Southern people, which is primarily small government. I incline heavily that way myself.
Banana- your wrong about the League. I am not a Christian myself, you know. Part of their plan for the South, detailed in the grey book, is unregulated airwaves on television and radio, including the decensoring of obscene language. It is true that the League recognises that most Southerners are Christians and Christianity is ain inextricable part of the Southern tradition and culture, but it isnt in the business of legislating it, nor does it asire to.
Ultimately, though, small government isnt the reason I want Southern independence, it would just be one of its happy boons. I want a South for the Southerners- I want the self-determination every nation-state deserves for my people, and I want to validate the efforts of the brave men of 1776 and 1861 by securing the freedom they fought for. Independence, to me, is not a means to an end, but is the end itself.
as for the South I envision, though? Very low taxes, very minimal government programs, without any tariffs or income tax, armed and independent state militias, with defended borders that -legal- immigrants may enter, private enterprise taking hold of many current government services today (Such as the postal service), armed neutrality, and a criminal code that focuses on malum en se rather than malum prohibitum.
Would you be ok then with smaller portions of the south seceding in turn? Like, what if some country in Alabama decides you all suck, and wants to form the Free State of Humboldt or something.
Does your vision of "independence" have any consistency?
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.
Well, if you are going with the "right" to secede, ie the legal right - that has been decided already. States do not have any legal right to unilateral secession, as stated by the USSC. So you have no grounds on any kind of legal justification.
So counties should have the right to self-determination. How about towns? Villages? My house? What if some part of say, Georgia, secedes from your nation, and wants to rejoin the USA. Is that ok?
Where does this "right" stop in a practical sense, and why should it stop at THAT point, rather than some other point, if it is in fact so fundamental? After all, all of these "things" you claim have "rights" are just political constructs - states, towns, counties - none of them have any profound identity.
You might consider reading the US Constitution some time, btw. States don't have rights. People have rights.
the U.S constitution is a document for loaning some powers to the federal government and reserving the rest. It does not, to my mind, restrict the power of the states- who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have, even if the federal government cannot. As a paper to coerce the states, it must by necessity be a powerless one.
I've thought about the self determination thing here. Your goal, should it be to point the ludicrousness of secession if it cannot be universally extended, doesnt make much sense. You know full well your house cannot secede.
But, here you go: I think the conditions for forming new counties rests in the hands of the state legislature. My home county has a secessionist element in its eastern half, actually- they want to form the county of Nashoba, and I suppose they have the right, but our state constitution says counties have a certain amount of landmass, which this one would not, and so it is opposed. Whether the state legislature is just or not in their ruling, that is the law, and would have to be changed for the eastern half of this county to form a county, and then secede.
A county can operate autonomously, although realistically any secession of a county would be on the basis of joining with other counties and forming a state, inside or outside of the Southern confederacy. So, a county is the absolute furthest point at which secession is feasible. Demands for anything below that are ridiculous, as I am sure you knew anyway.
Also, the USSC is a mistake the confederacy will never repeat, fortunately enough.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
It does not, to my mind, restrict the power of the states- who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have,
Oh, so now we see the violence inherent in the system.
I think the argument that a "state" is some kind of special construct that has rights while other constructs do not have those rights is ridiculous - my argument from absurdity is in fact deisnged to point that out. You cannot use the US Constitution to make an argument that a state is some kind of special political construct that has special "rights", while at the same time rejecting the US Constitution as being the body capable of defining those powers in order to turn around and claim there is a "right" to secede.
If the right to secede exists outside the US Constitution, then that right should exist regardless of the size of the political construct, at least by the logic you are applying. Why is there a land-size restriction? What is that land-size, and how is it that a political grouping a square meter smaller loses what you seem to be arguing is a fundamental right?
Quotethe U.S constitution is a document for loaning some powers to the federal government and reserving the rest...to the people[/n]
Fixed the part you left off. States do not have rights.
Quotewho are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have, even if the federal government cannot.
:boggle:
gee, I wonder what "citizens" would have their rights infringed by Lettows fantasy state?
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2009, 11:45:45 AM
So counties should have the right to self-determination. How about towns? Villages? My house? What if some part of say, Georgia, secedes from your nation, and wants to rejoin the USA. Is that ok?
Why stop there? I think my penis is going to apply for British citizenship.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:51:53 AMA county can operate autonomously, although realistically any secession of a county would be on the basis of joining with other counties and forming a state, inside or outside of the Southern confederacy. So, a county is the absolute furthest point at which secession is feasible. Demands for anything below that are ridiculous, as I am sure you knew anyway.
Cities can operate independently. :huh:
Oh and San Francisco is both a county and a city. If it were to secede, that's basically a city seceding.
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?
Garbon- alright. The same is true of many counties, I imagine?
Anyhow, re: the constitution:
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.
'Of the people' is interpreted to me as being the states, as the states are the sovereign political bodies and voices of the people. The Confederate constitution, that sublime document, further clarifies the matter which was an unfortunate source of contention with the yankees.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:33:36 AM
Kronn, I want the South to have a government based on the principles of the Southern people, which is primarily small government. I incline heavily that way myself.
as for the South I envision, though? Very low taxes, very minimal government programs, without any tariffs or income tax, armed and independent state militias, with defended borders that -legal- immigrants may enter, private enterprise taking hold of many current government services today (Such as the postal service), armed neutrality, and a criminal code that focuses on malum en se rather than malum prohibitum.
I think I can understand some of what you want here, especially limited and less obtrusive government, probably a weaker central govt. Heck, I think a lot of people want a lot of that too, and that's part of the political struggles we have today. Though the big govt types are in greater number in politics, even if not among the populace, regardless of party. I do think we've turned that corner a long time ago, to the ways of big govt. I don't see it changing, and even if a Southern nation did come about I think it would still have a lot of the current mind sets of larger government. Kind of hard to put that away.
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:51:53 AM
the U.S constitution is a document for loaning some powers to the federal government and reserving the rest. It does not, to my mind, restrict the power of the states- who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have, even if the federal government cannot. As a paper to coerce the states, it must by necessity be a powerless one.
I've thought about the self determination thing here. Your goal, should it be to point the ludicrousness of secession if it cannot be universally extended, doesnt make much sense. You know full well your house cannot secede.
But, here you go: I think the conditions for forming new counties rests in the hands of the state legislature. My home county has a secessionist element in its eastern half, actually- they want to form the county of Nashoba, and I suppose they have the right, but our state constitution says counties have a certain amount of landmass, which this one would not, and so it is opposed. Whether the state legislature is just or not in their ruling, that is the law, and would have to be changed for the eastern half of this county to form a county, and then secede.
A county can operate autonomously, although realistically any secession of a county would be on the basis of joining with other counties and forming a state, inside or outside of the Southern confederacy. So, a county is the absolute furthest point at which secession is feasible. Demands for anything below that are ridiculous, as I am sure you knew anyway.
Also, the USSC is a mistake the confederacy will never repeat, fortunately enough.
It is interesting how your argument for your position is that it is self-evidently correct, and your argument against Berkut's is that it is self-evidently ridiculous! :lol:
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 12:09:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 12:12:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 12:12:01 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 12:18:21 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 12:19:32 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 12:12:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:41:01 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 12:18:21 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 12:09:24 PM
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. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on November 12, 2009, 02:27:14 PM
:yes: Texas is most definitely NOT The South. Texas is Texas. :alberta:
Should have picked the right side in that carfuffle a 150 years ago.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 13, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
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.
:huh: 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."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 13, 2009, 12:42:24 PM
Actually, they changed status to "states" with the Articles of Confederation. :contract:
Incorrect. :contract:
Utah as an advocate of small government? :lmfao:
They'd be a theocracy if they could. What state wants to legislate your morality more than Utah?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 13, 2009, 12:38:53 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:41:01 AM
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.
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.
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.
:bowler:
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2009, 01:36:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2009, 11:45:45 AM
States don't have rights. People have rights.
Take a look at Article IV, Sections 3 and 4, as well as Amendment XI, and reconsider.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2009, 01:36:38 PM
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.
:bowler:
You have a cite on this? US histories show that each state was sovereign on its own, and that the Confederation was a non-sovereign alliance of the sovereign states.
The term "United States" was used before the ratification of the Constitution as the term "United Nations" was used before the signing of the UN charter.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 02:53:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2009, 01:36:38 PM
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.
:bowler:
You have a cite on this? US histories show that each state was sovereign on its own, and that the Confederation was a non-sovereign alliance of the sovereign states.
The term "United States" was used before the ratification of the Constitution as the term "United Nations" was used before the signing of the UN charter.
Your histories are wrong. Sovereignty remained with the Crown until the Crown relinqueshed soveriegnty in the Treaty of Paris.
Quote from: ulmont on November 13, 2009, 02:51:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2009, 11:45:45 AM
States don't have rights. People have rights.
Take a look at Article IV, Sections 3 and 4, as well as Amendment XI, and reconsider.
QuoteArticle IV
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
QuoteAmendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
OK, still don't see anything there about the rights of States. Probably because they don't have any.
Are we reading different Constitutions, perhaps?
Quote from: KRonn on November 13, 2009, 12:10:33 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:33:36 AM
Kronn, I want the South to have a government based on the principles of the Southern people, which is primarily small government. I incline heavily that way myself.
as for the South I envision, though? Very low taxes, very minimal government programs, without any tariffs or income tax, armed and independent state militias, with defended borders that -legal- immigrants may enter, private enterprise taking hold of many current government services today (Such as the postal service), armed neutrality, and a criminal code that focuses on malum en se rather than malum prohibitum.
I think I can understand some of what you want here, especially limited and less obtrusive government, probably a weaker central govt. Heck, I think a lot of people want a lot of that too, and that's part of the political struggles we have today. Though the big govt types are in greater number in politics, even if not among the populace, regardless of party. I do think we've turned that corner a long time ago, to the ways of big govt. I don't see it changing, and even if a Southern nation did come about I think it would still have a lot of the current mind sets of larger government. Kind of hard to put that away.
Would you want to live a country without the FDA? Southern hamburger and Russian Roulette would have a lot in common.
DOWN WITH GUMMINT LET THE INVISIBLE HAND DECIDE
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 01:29:50 PM
Utah as an advocate of small government? :lmfao:
They'd be a theocracy if they could. What state wants to legislate your morality more than Utah?
Yeah...nobody in the South ever favors legislating morality...
Quote from: Viking on November 13, 2009, 12:47:52 PM
Should have picked the right side in that carfuffle a 150 years ago.
Hundreds of years of disparate history and culture mean nothing so long as we got fooled into fighting alongside those moronic Easterners for four years. In any case Texas was certainly alot more Southern at that particular time in history thanks to the rapid spread of slavery, but it was just an influence. Most of the population in the Eastern part were quite literally Southerners only having recently crossed over. My part of the State was covered by German speaking towns and they certainly did not consider themselves Southerners and voted against secession. They Tejanos in the West were certainly not crazy about dying so the Easterners could keep their slaves.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 11:41:01 AM
I'd be happy with the South free, even if, using that freedom, it fragmented upon itself.
Of course you do since you consider political fragmantation the greatest thing for freedom evah. I hate to break it to you but splitting the world up into thousands of petty states will not do a lick to increase individual freedom.
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2009, 03:44:43 PM
Of course you do since you consider political fragmantation the greatest thing for freedom evah. I hate to break it to you but splitting the world up into thousands of petty states will not do a lick to increase individual freedom.
I think they called that the Dark Ages. Fits with the Southern mentality, I suppose.
Quote from: Lettow77 on November 13, 2009, 12:09:24 PM
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.
'Of the people' is interpreted to me as being the states, as the states are the sovereign political bodies and voices of the people. The Confederate constitution, that sublime document, further clarifies the matter which was an unfortunate source of contention with the yankees.
"reserved to the states or the states?" That is rather an odd statement.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2009, 02:55:56 PM
Your histories are wrong. Sovereignty remained with the Crown until the Crown relinqueshed soveriegnty in the Treaty of Paris.
Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.
As an aside, the contention that Sovereignty remained with the Crown until 1783 is laughable. It is true that the British government did not formally acknowledge their loss of sovereignty until 1783, but it was contested from 1776 and definitely lost in all of the former colonies save the cities of New York City and Charleston by the end of 1781.
Not, of course, that this has anything to do with your unwillingness to provide citations to support your assertion that sovereignty was transferred to a single sovereign American "US government" entity in 1783.
I don't think you can even grasp what I am asking for, though.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 04:10:29 PM
Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.
Well duh, it was humorous banter about those naughty Americans.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2009, 03:03:18 PM
QuoteArticle IV
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
QuoteAmendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
OK, still don't see anything there about the rights of States. Probably because they don't have any.
Are we reading different Constitutions, perhaps?
That gives the States the following rights:
1) Not to have their geographic borders rearranged without their consent;
2) Not to be invaded or have a republican form of government replaced; and
3) Not to be sued in federal court by a non-State citizen [interpreted to generally codify sovereign immunity for states].
You aren't allowed to plant things of your own accord in national parks. Does that mean that the parks have rights?
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 04:10:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2009, 02:55:56 PM
Your histories are wrong. Sovereignty remained with the Crown until the Crown relinqueshed soveriegnty in the Treaty of Paris.
Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.
As an aside, the contention that Sovereignty remained with the Crown until 1783 is laughable. It is true that the British government did not formally acknowledge their loss of sovereignty until 1783, but it was contested from 1776 and definitely lost in all of the former colonies save the cities of New York City and Charleston by the end of 1781.
You are confusing
de facto control with
de jure sovereignty. :)
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 04:10:29 PM
I don't think you can even grasp what I am asking for, though.
As usual, grumbler goes straight to ad homs.
I think it's funny that so many people seem to be trying to conduct a reasoned discussion with someone like lettow. Internet is amazing. :lol:
Oh and btw, only individuals have rights. States, governments, churches, townships, school boards, port authorities, city police bodies etc. have powers.
A serious question to lettow: could you change your avatar, please? Of all the pictures of girls available on the net, you had to pick one that shows a fugly fat girl with a lousy haircut and an expression of a mentally challenged hamster? For shame. :rolleyes:
I think it's his girl friend you fucking retard.
Marcin is just jealous as henhas to pay to get and affection :console:
edit: lol Marvin, damn iPhone predictive text.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2009, 06:52:40 PM
I think it's his girl friend you fucking retard.
:yes:
Nice, Marti. :lol:
Im rather fond of how the missus looks, actually. :)
And the avatar was a shift away from political stuff. its not all I am, you know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2009, 06:52:40 PM
I think it's his girl friend you fucking retard.
I'm guessing that he knew that. :mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2009, 06:46:17 PM
Oh and btw, only individuals have rights. States, governments, churches, townships, school boards, port authorities, city police bodies etc. have powers.
I am a government and a church, and yet I have rights.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2009, 07:35:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2009, 06:52:40 PM
I think it's his girl friend you fucking retard.
I'm guessing that he knew that. :mellow:
Yep. Then again, if I looked like Martinus, I wouldn't be ragging on how anybody else looks.
Quote from: Neil on November 13, 2009, 07:37:14 PM
Yep. Then again, if I looked like Martinus, I wouldn't be ragging on how anybody else looks.
Fair -_-
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2009, 04:11:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 04:10:29 PM
Nevermind. I see you are not interested in reading my question for comprehension, but prefer to repeat erroneous bullshit even if it is unrelated to the question.
Well duh, it was humorous banter about those naughty Americans.
Oh. :Embarrass:
Perhaps you are right.
Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2009, 05:12:24 PM
You are confusing de facto control with de jure sovereignty. :)
De jure sovereignty come with international recognition, which occurred in 1777. :)
Quote from: ulmont on November 13, 2009, 05:06:48 PM
That gives the States the following rights:
1) Not to have their geographic borders rearranged without their consent;
2) Not to be invaded or have a republican form of government replaced; and
3) Not to be sued in federal court by a non-State citizen [interpreted to generally codify sovereign immunity for states].
Nope. These are limits on Federal and individual powers. Rights exist independent of Constitutions. The "right" to secede is, in Constitutional terms, far more realistically a "right" than is the "right" not to have borders altered without consent from the state legislature.
Quote from: grumbler on November 13, 2009, 10:34:51 PM
Nope. These are limits on Federal and individual powers. Rights exist independent of Constitutions. The "right" to secede is, in Constitutional terms, far more realistically a "right" than is the "right" not to have borders altered without consent from the state legislature.
I disagree. If a state, as a Constitutional matter, cannot have X event happen to them, that is a right of the state.
Quote from: ulmont on November 14, 2009, 12:09:30 AM
I disagree. If a state, as a Constitutional matter, cannot have X event happen to them, that is a right of the state.
You should feel free to assert whatever random thoughts cross your mind as "truths,' but don't expect anyone to take them seriously uhnless backed by some actual thought.
If you want to argue 'state's rights' then you have to indicate the source of those rights. The Constitution of the US grants no rights (again, excepting the putative "right to vote" which, as we know, isn't a right per se at all), it merely refers to them, and certainly we don't hold the truth to be self evident that all states are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
So, whence come the rights of the states? The mere assertion of the states-rightsers?
Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2009, 06:50:23 PM
A serious question to lettow: could you change your avatar, please? Of all the pictures of girls available on the net, you had to pick one that shows a fugly fat girl with a lousy haircut and an expression of a mentally challenged hamster? For shame. :rolleyes:
While the looks in general may be a matter of taste ... fat? Are Poles so malnourished that *this* looks fat to you? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2009, 06:52:40 PM
I think it's his girl friend you fucking retard.
I know that, you fucking retard. Don't see exactly how this changes the validity of my comment.
Quote from: Neil on November 13, 2009, 07:37:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2009, 07:35:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2009, 06:52:40 PM
I think it's his girl friend you fucking retard.
I'm guessing that he knew that. :mellow:
Yep. Then again, if I looked like Martinus, I wouldn't be ragging on how anybody else looks.
Well, at least I do not look like a red-faced fat piglet, like you. Seriously, I've seen your pictures from the London meet. :x
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2009, 05:58:36 AM
Well, at least I do not look like a red-faced fat piglet, like you. Seriously, I've seen your pictures from the London meet. :x
Actually, I'm, quite striking. My proportionally-sized jaw and lips, as well as my lack of Slavic features make me quite pleasant to look at.
Beauty contest! :w00t:
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2009, 02:17:11 AM
The Constitution of the US grants no rights (again, excepting the putative "right to vote" which, as we know, isn't a right per se at all), it merely refers to them
The Constitution spells out the states' right to territorial integrity.
If the Constitution wasn't so well protected I would wipe my ass with it.
Quote from: ulmont on November 14, 2009, 11:36:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2009, 02:17:11 AM
The Constitution of the US grants no rights (again, excepting the putative "right to vote" which, as we know, isn't a right per se at all), it merely refers to them
The Constitution spells out the states' right to territorial integrity.
No it doesn't, unless you define "right" as any rule of government. Might as well say I have the "right" to not drive over 45mph outside my house.
Quote from: ulmont on November 13, 2009, 05:06:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2009, 03:03:18 PM
QuoteArticle IV
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
QuoteAmendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
OK, still don't see anything there about the rights of States. Probably because they don't have any.
Are we reading different Constitutions, perhaps?
That gives the States the following rights:
1) Not to have their geographic borders rearranged without their consent;
2) Not to be invaded or have a republican form of government replaced; and
3) Not to be sued in federal court by a non-State citizen [interpreted to generally codify sovereign immunity for states].
That's not how I read those provisions.
Art IV, Section 3 is an affirmative grant of power to the federal government to admit states in the union, and to make rules and regulations for the territories. The "but" clauses is simply a limitation on that affirmative grant of power.
Art IV Section 4 is another affirmative grant of power to the federal government. Although it is phrased as if an obligation, its actual effect is to give the federal government the power to intervene in state affairs by force if necessary under certain conditions, so I would hardly characterize it as a "state right". The clincher is that the decision to invoke the domestic violence provision is confided to the federal Congress. The states have no ability to cause the feds to act with respect to the other provisions - and we all know that rights without remedies are not rights at all.
The 11th amendment is just a rule limiting the scope of federal court jurisdiction.
Quote from: ulmont on November 14, 2009, 11:36:31 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 14, 2009, 02:17:11 AM
The Constitution of the US grants no rights (again, excepting the putative "right to vote" which, as we know, isn't a right per se at all), it merely refers to them
The Constitution spells out the states' right to territorial integrity.
No, it doesn't.
I suspect that we aren't going to get anywhere because you are using a completely different definition of what a "right" is than is used by anyone else, so this will just be a "yes it is - no it isn't" waste of time.
States have no rights in the sense that term is used in the law. If your mileage differs, then you don't use "rights" in that sense.
Wyoming has a lot of rights. Very few lefts.