Secession debate

[araby]

http://texasweekly.com/node/3821

Ron Paul: Secession — The Ultimate States’ Right

Last week the governor of Texas ignited a media firestorm for his remarks involving the idea of secession. He did not call for Texas to secede from the United States. He merely pointed out that the federal government is treading heavily on the sovereignty of the states and that this cannot continue indefinitely without a breaking point. The reaction to Governor Perry’s statements has been nothing short of hysterical. He has been called treasonous for making this obvious point and opening up a discussion.

I am not calling for secession either, however there is nothing wrong with a healthy and open discussion of this issue. America was born from an act of secession. When King George’s rule trampled on the rights of the colonies, we successfully seceded from England. It took a war, but we were well within our rights.

We applauded when former soviet states seceded from the USSR and declared their sovereignty. And hopefully the United States will eventually secede from the United Nations. We pay most of the bills of the UN, yet do not have the commensurate votes, so someday we will wake up and realize that membership, for these and other reasons, does not serve our interests.

On a personal level, contracts you enter into can be terminated if one side unilaterally changes the terms. If a credit card company jacks up your interest rate, you have every right to fulfill your obligations and close the account. Imagine if you were forced to stay with a credit card company forever no matter what just because you previously signed up!
The principle of self-determination applies to political unions as well.

In the cases I mentioned above, governing organizations transformed into much more overbearing entities than originally agreed upon. Several state constitutions originally had clauses explicitly allowing them to opt out of the Union down the road if they so chose. I doubt our country would have ever come together if this were not the case. Just because the north successfully kept the union together by force with the Civil War does not mean that enslaving the states is a legitimate alternative. Secession is the last resort of states whose sovereignty is over-ridden by an overreaching federal government. The federal government has only itself to blame for this talk.

Recently, some states have enacted laws allowing for the medicinal use of marijuana, yet these laws are basically voided by the continuing raids by the DEA, sanctioned by the administration.

The federal government is also strong-arming states with stimulus money, forcing them to expand programs they know they will not be able to afford in the future, at a time when many states’ budgets are already in the red. This is not a new problem.

No Child Left Behind burdened the states’ education systems and forced them through many hoops designed by federal bureaucrats in distant Washington DC rather than allowing communities to tailor education to their children’s unique needs.

There are numerous other examples of the erosion of state sovereignty and many governors are frustrated, not just ours in Texas. Without the right to secede, state’s rights are meaningless. A republican form of government should also be as close to the people as possible, which means the decisions of local governing bodies must be respected. Where the decisions of local governments are disregarded, the voice of the people is also disregarded. The more that happens, the more frustrated and angry the people will become.

Ron Paul, R-Surfside, represents the 14th Congressional District in Texas.

[Arlos]

Talking secession *IS* Ridiculous. The civil war proved that this nation is indissoluble. To be talking it NOW, nearly 150 years later is utterly retarded. Period.

-Arlos

[araby]

I think that you referencing 150 years ago is ridiculous. This is now.

[Arlos]

Oh, so we shouldn't reference the Constitution any more either, since that's over 200 years old? Well, I mean, the Bush administration certainly didn't pay any attention to it, but you're saying no one else should either?

History is what makes us what we are today as a nation.

This is no longer the nation it was before the civil war, when it could accurately be looked at as a confederation of semi-independent nation-states. The Civil War changed that forever.

Look at the Pledge of Allegiance: "One Nation, indivisible...."

Secession is a ludicrous idea. Absolutely one of the most retarded things I have heard in years. It can not happen. It will not happen. Not without the entire United States ceasing to exist. It is an impossibility under law, and any state official talking about it as a possibility is utterly insane, and especially in the case of a governor, shows a complete abdication of the responsibilities of their position and a complete lack of responsibility.

-Arlos

[brinstar]

imo texas can get right the fuck out of the union

we don't even have to change the flag, we can just add puerto rico instead

[araby]

The Constitution was written 200 years ago, but with reference to our future as a country. It is a perfect reference, thanks for mentioning it.

History isn't what made us a nation. What made us a nation, was secession from England. I realize that is a *part* of history, but they are our allies now

If the government fails to uphold its end of the agreement, why wouldn't a state be allowed to free itself?

[Spazz]

If the government fails to uphold its end of the agreement, why wouldn't a state be allowed to free itself?

A history book would answer that question for you araby. The path that leads to is war, and not just any war but civil war where it will be american on american in america . How much death suffering and hatred did we get the last time a state tried to leave ? States rights means you can argue drinking ages, gay marrige , guns , weed or other matters like that.It does not mean you have the right to break up the country or start a war.

[Arlos]

States do not in any way, shape or form have any sort of legal right to secede. Period.

The civil war is an inviolate precedent proving that it is impossible for a state to leave.

So yes, talking about an impossibility IS pointless and retarded, and suggesting something blatantly illegal and counter to the Constitution is irresponsible for an elected official.

-Arlos

[araby]

The argument isn't whether or not it's legal for a state to secede. The argument is whether or not it should or should not be. Initially, as stated in the article, states were given the right to secede, if it came to be. What Ron Paul is saying here, is that the reaction (much like the ones here so far) have been hysterical. Why so hysterical?

Governor Mark Sanford, of South Carolina, as well as Sarah Palin of Alaska are both refusing stimulus package funds. I've been very torn on this issue, because while I agree it is wrong (using Ron Paul's words here) to "strong-arm" states into accepting funds without allowing them to use the funds as they see fit, I'm not sure what he can do now that the funds have been distributed. South Carolina, in spite of being a part of the union for the last 150 years, is still very much behind the rest of the country in EVERYTHING. Even accepting federal funds. On the one hand, I admire his defiance-he wants to pay down state debt, but isn't allowed to use it as he chooses.

That is what they are claiming is unconstitutional. I am not a fan of Sarah Palin, or Mark Sanford, and am not riding into town on their right-wing wagons. However, if we're going to talk what is legal and constitutional, let's talk about it. Is it unconstitutional to force money onto states without giving them a right to spend it as they choose? At this point, if the constitutional rights of the individual states are being ignored, then don't be surprised when someone says "secede".

That is the point of the article.

[Spazz]

People get " hystarical" when they hear that word becuase it means and leads to war . As far as the govt strongarming states into money with the economy all jacked up and that being part of the plan to fix it I think states need to play ball right now and see if the plan will work. We are never going to pay that debt down or dent it if we dont get people back to work and find some new ways to create tax revenue without actually raising taxes.

[Arlos]

No, states didn't have the right to secede before the civil war. Some THOUGHT they did, but that was what the War was all about, actually. Slavery wasn't added as a cause to the Civil war until 1863, 2 years after it started. Originally, it was all about settling the question of whether or not states could leave the union if they so wished, and whether or not the federal government came first or state governments did.

Obviously, the result was that the Federal government came first, and states did NOT have the right to secede. Claiming they once did doesn't make it so, sorry.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

Governor Mark Sanford, of South Carolina, as well as Sarah Palin of Alaska are both refusing stimulus package funds.

imo, this means jack and shit if you selectively choose which funds you're going to take - both of them from the word go willingly accept some of the funds. it's a political stunt for the cameras - neither one of them has any qualms about accepting money, as long as it's on their own terms. it's a joke.

[vonkaar]

The original post

was hard

to read

when paragra
phs

were not used

Am I

the only one?

who thought?

this?

[araby]

my apologies vonk...will fix that. it wasn't originally in that format, and didn't even notice it until your post!

[vonkaar]

looks better, now I will read it!

[KaiineTN]

Lawl at Arlos, mentioning the Pledge of Allegience when arguing in favor of our indivisbility when the Pledge was written well after the Civil War and by a socialist.

I suppose we are indivisible, united by the tyrannical and empirical actions of a federal government which claims to be of and for you and I, from which we have no means to stimulate real change, since both major political parties are indentical in terms of their massive spending, power grabs, and fascist ties.

There is no reversing the course this country is headed in, not for a long time. Our liberties will continue to deteriorate and the government will continue expand, spending more on ineffective, inefficient programs that take more of our earnings from our pockets. No matter how bad things become, you'll always hear something like "it'd be so much worse if we hadn't done anything!" And that will be blindly accepted.

Having the right to secede would be a very effective way to keep the federal government in line, but I would sincerely hope that no State would ever feel the need to exercise it.

[Naethyn]

Read the Declaration of Independence if you need further proof.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[Harrison]

Read the Declaration of Independence if you need further proof.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That isn't a right to the state as a government of the same beast to secede. That is to say if the government as a whole was to start oppressing the people, we are pretty much obligated to overthrow our own government.

We vote in our representatives and officials. Don't start spouting off lines of the declaration of independence to support crackpot ideas, out of context.

[ClakarEQ]

Read the Declaration of Independence if you need further proof.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

That isn't a right to the state as a government of the same beast to secede. That is to say if the government as a whole was to start oppressing the people, we are pretty much obligated to overthrow our own government.

We vote in our representatives and officials. Don't start spouting off lines of the declaration of independence to support crackpot ideas, out of context.

OMG, I 100% agree with Harri, if I could I'd buy you a beer right now

[KaiineTN]

Some people think our current form of taxation, along with the fact that money is being taken from all and given to some (which is unconstitutional), plus the empirical nature of our foreign policy is, in fact, a form of oppression.

[Spazz]

Well some people are fuckin idiots.

[araby]

no one is starting a war today, texas is not trying to secede today. they are simply wanting what is constitutionally their right. this is simply a debate.

I'm researching history and politics with a guru now about some of the truth behind what is "constitutional" and am not talking about wiki pages for reference...this guy knows his stuff. it's my personal interest because it is a subject I'm very torn on.

[Arlos]

Oh please, any sort of progressive taxation by its VERY DEFINITION is money taken from all given to some. Your statement is complete and utter bullshit and nonsense. If you're going to argue a position, at least don't try and start out with something so utterly indefensible at the very start of it. Oh, and it *IS* constitutional now, even if it wasn't before, because we amended the constitution to MAKE it legal. Oh, and if you start spouting off that conspiracy theory nonsense that has been disproven time and again that it wasn't properly ratified, I'm going to forward you to a tinfoil hat fitting.

The utter whining over an increase of 3 percent to the tax rate of the very top bracket is just pathetic, when it isn't laughable. How about we go back to the 90+% it was in the 50s, hmmmm? Where were the calls for seceding then, or people teabagging anybody? (in the political sense, of course).

Face it, deregulation and a hands-off attitude to the market got us into this mess, the biggest since the Great Depression. What got us out there? In large part, following Keynsian economic principles. So guess what, Sherlock, we're back in a situation where the financial system ran amuck, and we need to dig out of it, so we're going to go with what worked. And funny, it seems to be working again. How many weeks in a row now has the market been up? How many banks are ready to pay back the TARP money given to them? Sure, we're still armpit-deep in the cesspool, but at least we're not nose-deep any more.

Empirical nature of foreign policy? Do you even know what Empirical means? From Webster's online dictionary: "Originating in, or based on observation and experience". Funny, shouldn't we base our foreign policy on what we observe going on in the world, combined with the experience of the diplomats, negotiators and politicians involved? Perhaps if you had said IMPERIAL foreign policy, you might have made sense, and it is inarguable we had such a foreign policy under Bush, much to this country's regret. Perhaps you haven't been following the news lately, though, but Obama's foreign policy has been anything BUT Imperial.

-Arlos

PS. The pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister. That is easily in living memory of the Civil War. Hell, at that point, people who fought in the Civil War were generally in their 40s or early 50s, and there were lots of them around. Saying the Civil War wasn't an influence on its creation is ludicrous.

[Arlos]

No, Araby, Secession is *NOT* a constitutional right. Sorry.

Never was, never will be.

Some states thought it was, tried to secede, and we had a war you might have heard of, the Civil War, to settle the issue. That's what the war was about at the beginning. It had very little to do with freeing the slaves. Look up when the war started and when Lincoln issued the Emancipation proclamation. They're rather widely disparate.

The issue is SETTLED. States do NOT have any form of constitutional right whatsoever to secede. Sorry. But it's just that cut and dried.

-Arlos

[Spazz]

Araby do you call the civil war the war of northern aggression in your house ?