Ron Paul: You know what’s “very American”? Secession
posted at 5:15 pm on April 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
You know what’s more American? Fighting wars to crush secessionism. Or better yet, winning an election, something the 3% rEVOLution tried last year and at which they failed dismally. Having had his agenda to remake government rejected by his countrymen, America’s Greatest Patriot wonders if they’re really his countrymen after all and points to an antebellum model of states’ rights to bring about Paultopia. And to think, I used to call him a Bircheresque crank.
Also, did you know that when your kid says the “pledge of allegiance,” he’s actually reciting socialist propaganda? True story.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
We’re gonna need a bigger blimp.
lorien1973 on April 20, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Stick a fork in him, he’s done.
KillerKane on April 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I agree with many positions that Dr. Paul holds, but he’s wrong this time. Secession is illegal, we fought a civil war to settle that point.
nazo311 on April 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I’m ok with Ron Paul seceding, actually.
Tanya on April 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Ugh. Mr. Paul you are no better than the angry left.
Lance Murdock on April 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM
If secession is illegal, why did we support the secession of Kosovo, even going to war for them? Its obviously not illegal – self determination is championed by the United States around the world.
He isn’t suggesting anyone secede, but objects to the idea that its “treason.”
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Only if he takes the paultards with him, though.
lorien1973 on April 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Only guy I would have to stay home for if he won the primaries.
hawkdriver on April 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Is this gonna be 1,000 post Texas Secession thread? WOOHOO!
robblefarian on April 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM
He’s an embarrassment to the Republican party, and these days that’s saying something. The sooner he’s out, the better.
stefanite on April 20, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I just like secession talk because it puts AP at a level of sarcasm that’s unmatched.
Weight of Glory on April 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM
RON PAUL!JEFF DAVIS!Cuffy Meigs on April 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Serious Question:
If Puerto Rico became a State…that would mean it is a permanent decision?
On what basis?
Dadvocate on April 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM
I’m going to an event at WFU he’s speaking at tonight. I gotta run because it starts at 7 and I am now and have been pretty stoked about it.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Frankly, I find it more embarrassing when people misrepresent what others say, and people just take their word for it.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I am certainly not a Paul fan, but secession is not illegal.
Any state can secede if the state votes on it.
The federal government can either try to force them back in or choose not to.
Lincoln chose to fight to preserve the Union.
carbon_footprint on April 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM
You are completely right, but so many people will immediately write off anything Ron Paul says just because of who he is that its pretty disappointing.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Secession is legal within the Texas Constitution signed with the Feds when they came to be apart of the United States and stopped being their own nation. They reserved that right, smartly. Same with original states but we did fight a war on that one, since then the Feds have ruled.
be prepared to get bombarded with some history. Now how you realistically cut ties without fighting a war, given all the ties financially and what not and who gets what, etc.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Ron, how about using your pull to help out your own darn party rather than shipwreck it again. You have great ideas and are a force to be reckoned with…but stop running off a cliff and work from within.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Dang, on this subject Paul makes a valid argument, especially regarding the press.I disagree with the ability to secede voluntary (I think the ratification was binding), but it is not a topic that is not anti-American.
To say that secession was is not American is to deny the root of the war of Independence. Jefferson himself said post-ratification that the tree of liberty should be sprinkled from time to time with the blood of patriots. He was wrong, I think, one the circumstances that evoked that comment, but the principle clearly was one that was remember by him.
Additionally, the 2nd amendment was put in not for hunting or even self-defense, but to give the people the power to defend against a tyrannical government. If they were to oppose a tyrannical government, it’s a fair bet they would rally around small organizations, such as cities, counties, and oh, states.
We have a rich history of freedom. I think Paul is wrong, legally here, but I completely agree with him that talking about freedom and it’s costs is very American.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Secession is like war. it can’t be legal or illegal. it is what it is and regardless if you think it is right or wrong the victor is always right ultimately.
The American revolution was illegal, but once we kicked their ass it was done.
TheSitRep on April 20, 2009 at 5:28 PM
it is not a topic that is
notanti-American.Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t the 10th amendment leave the right to secede with the states/the people?
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:29 PM
(I liked Ron Paul…but sometimes he freaks me out…)
I think we NEED the true Paul”tards” Like them or not, they are a fan of liberty and we need a greater libertarian strain and fiscal restraint AND constitutional literacy. If Ron paul excites that in them, I hope he continues…as long as he can tame it and channel it into real GOP solutions.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:29 PM
No, this is a myth that’s been circulating for weeks now. The agreement with the feds entitles Texas to split into five states. There’s no secession provision.
Allahpundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:29 PM
agree, he’s an absolute idiot and a net-gigantic negative for the GOP, though positive for the DNC. however, he’s not wrong on every single issue.
better to focus on his crazy talk on Alex Jones, his lies about the Foundign Fathers and our history related to Foreign Policy.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Free people don’t pledge allegiance to anything. As for the rest, I’m sure his view on secession are mainstream here.
radiofreevillage on April 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM
opps. I is sorry.
Mommypundit on April 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM
It is illegal as in that it cannot be done within the governing system. Just an issue of the perspective.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Thats true, Allah, there is no provision like that. But where is the provision on the Constitution that says the right to secede is held by the Feds? There doesn’t need to have been a provision when Texas joined, if the right is automatically, via the 10th amendment, held by states or the people.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Nice of him to take some of the heat off of Gov. Perry.
Cindy Munford on April 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Secession is not illegal and if it were pursued it would begin as a legislative action. Never consider anything impossible . . . how many of you would have forecast the breakup of the Soviet Union two years before it occurred?
rplat on April 20, 2009 at 5:32 PM
You need to do some more research on that one
offroadaz on April 20, 2009 at 5:33 PM
not going to happen intentionally. He hates the GOP, possibly worse than the Dems.
Paul is an Anarcho-Capitalist in the tradition of Murray Rothbard. They reject Classical Liberalism in favor of it, and to them its their way or the highway, Zero room for compromise.
They are either ignorant of or lying on the topic of America’s foreign policy history also, and that is a huge issue to them.
Stupidly, many of them think Hong Kong is this great Free Market paradise to move to. What they fail to grasp is that to the extent this is true its thanks to British Interventionist Foreign Policy that made HK such a great place to do business eventually. If the British followed Paul’s vision for FP, Hong Kong would be a hell hole today
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM
AP with all due respect. While Dr. Paul may be a crackpot on some issues. Don’t dismiss all that he is saying from a historical perspective. The fact is prior to the American Civil War it was an accepted alternative to over reaching federal government. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking the Civil War was about slavery. It was about President Lincoln’s believe that the Union must be preserved at any cost. Slavery, economics etc were just used to justify the federal power grab.
People make the same judgements on Patrick Buchannan’s words at times. You may disagree with the messenger but that doesn’t mean the message is without any merit. It is the same as when people pan Michelle Malkin’s books because they don’t like the messenger.
JKotthoff on April 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM
This, I think, exposes the liberalism of many on this site, including the poster. Where is Dr. Paul wrong? Are the states not sovereign? If the states are not sovereign, then why did they have the authority to ratify the constitution? The only answer is that they are themselves free and are not bound in any way to remain part of any union.
The idea that the federal government has the authority to use violent force to maintain the union is both illogical and immoral. Who would ever threaten a state’s citizens with death because they have freely decided to leave the union? The question itself illuminates the ridiculousness of both the Civil War and the mockery of those who discuss the idea of secession. I do not understand how one can distinguish any of this from typical statist liberalism.
Innocent Smith on April 20, 2009 at 5:34 PM
No.
There are two good illustrations of why this isn’t the case. First, the Constitution grants the authority to Congress to put down insurrection – Section 8 if you have it handy(que the Lincoln haters, since he was an exec).
And secondarily, the Constitution was for all states to be entered into on 9 of 13 votes. What that means is that 4 of the 13 could have voted no and they still would have been bound. So at the time, the state entered into the arrangement with an acknowledgment that the new authority would be greater then the individual states itself. (Did I make that clear? Hope so).
That is not to diminish the power and the authority of the states, but the Constitution was to put us all in together for better, for worse.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I wish Alaska was still a territory.
upinak on April 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Rather than leave the USA to the liberals, I’d rather we keep the country and we kick them out.
joe_doufu on April 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM
The only place Paul will ever be leader of is a Tin Foil parade.
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM
If the Confederates had not stupidly fired on Ft. Sumter, the entire war would have been different. Lincoln would have had to take military action first and the North would have seen themselves less in the right.
Speedwagon82 on April 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM
You know, Ron Paul has more on the ball constitutionally than any other Representative I’ve ever heard.
RP’s points seem to disturb some of you all.
44Magnum on April 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM
If any state did have the authority, it would be Texas, but they don’t either.
The other states are merely re-organized federal territories. Ie they are not self-determined in the first place really – land was provided by the federal government, people organized and submitted for a higher level of government, statehood, and applied for representation with the other organized federal territories (states).
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Well maybe or maybe not…..but I’m pretty sure the question of whether we can kick out all the blue states is still open to debate.
And whether something is legal or not may have less to do with precedent and a civil war fought 140 years ago and much more to do with the value of the greenback.
When the U.S. is $50 Trillion in the hole, succession may become an economic necessity.
Kasper Hauser on April 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM
So Allahpundit, is secession illegal as in illegal alien? If that’s the case, then who cares what is legal or not? The McCain’s don’t.
I’m out. And to show WFU is fair and balanced, Joe Biden is speaking at this year’s graduation. We are open minded independent thinkers who don’t have to be told what to think without sound reasoning behind it. I recommend everyone send their children to Wake Forest University to get the best value of education.
ThackerAgency on April 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Unquestionably true.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:39 PM
The first I think would depend on how you want to define insurrection. If an armed militia seizes power in a state and declares independence, that I think would be an insurrection. But if a state votes – through legal means in that state (it would vary by location) – and decides to secede as a result of a popular movement… is this an insurrection? If we can defend the self determination of places half way across the world, clearly we are taking a stance that there is such a thing as legal secession (among other things.)
As far as the second goes, I dont see it as taking the right to secede away from the states. The only way it would is if the document they were bound to included a means to opt out that required federal approval. But it didn’t, the document they signed on to said the powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states/people.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Am I the only one who sees Ron Paul (especially in a setting like the thumbnail above) and is immediately reminded of the leader of the Heaven’s Gate cult?
…and is that going over the line? …Or at least, a line? Either way, I’m holding back from saying anything regarding purple cloaks and Nikes.
…Just sayin’.
CatsGodot on April 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Spirit of 1776 said:
“The other states are merely re-organized federal territories.”
The original 13 colonies? Puh-lease.
dtestard on April 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Abortion was illegal. That didn’t stop the nation from driving itself off a cliff.
We don’t want to secede, but we will if we have to. You Federal folks just don’t understand that sitting down and shutting up isn’t in our nature down here.
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 5:42 PM
That crack was beneath you Allah.
Following this line, only Obama has a right to say anything, since he won the last election.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Look I’m as patriotic as anyone, but I really don’t see what the point is of using military force to take back a seceded state as long as a majority legitimately wanted to secede. That means no vote fraud, duress etc.
Speedwagon82 on April 20, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Nah, same critter as Obama but in a different coat, the Flim-Flam Critter.
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I didn’t know that, but I do now!
Rae on April 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM
See Texas vs. White. Sesseccion is illegal. I’m not the one who needs to do my homework.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court which under the United States Constitution retained original jurisdiction on cases in which a state was a party.
In accepting jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.
nazo311 on April 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I thought the theory of might makes right went out hundreds of years ago.
The only thing the civil war settled was the notion that the side with the most guns can force the other side to do anything. Hardly an “American” principle.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Why secede? It seems it would be better to put California and Michigan out of the Union until they’ve grown up.
Kralizec on April 20, 2009 at 5:45 PM
I disagree with this idea. The point of federalism is that the states are not mere agents of the federal government in the way some “divisions” in other nations only have powers granted to them by the central government. They purposely divided powers, splitting things vertically and horizontally with the intent of creating a sort of balance. Within that, they made it clear that those powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I’m takin’ my toys and going home.
- too many posters in this thread
lorien1973 on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Soon, with Obama’s inclination to address every problem he (and the left) perceives from a global perspective, you’re going to see treaty after treaty being presented for Senate consent, all designed to weaken the very foundation of our Constitution and the individual rights therein guaranteed.
Some of these treaties will be approved, because to do otherwise “would isolate the US from every other signatory nation”. Can you spell freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, to name a few?
If I’m right about this, and I am, secession will become, for some states at least, the only choice to protect freedom as we know it.
Now, Ron Paul is an easy target, and quite frankly somewhat of a joke. He will not be the leader of any movement. But if I’m right, and I am, we may finally see a leader arise who will challenge the country to return to its roots, the Constitution, else die. And, I think — I certainly hope — it will choose life, with liberty.
TXUS on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM
no
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Sorry, I should have been extremely precise. Of course, not the original colonies. There were never federal territories, because…wait for it…
there was no federal government! Obviously they were colonial holdings of the British, which fought a war of Independence and had self-determination. Upon the failings of the Articles, they apparently decided they needed a stronger central government, which we now have from the Constitution. Which, as I noted, only 9 yes votes were needed to seal 13 colonies.
Fair enough?
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Wow. So when do we call London for further instructions?
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Um, rampant anti-semitism among your supporters and being called a “k!ke-lover?”
Oh never-mind,
Branch Rickey on April 20, 2009 at 5:47 PM
They agreed they needed something stronger, but not something so strong that it held all the powers. Which it doesn’t.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Let me clarify. I have completely written off Ron Paul. He is an anti-Israel kook who poses for pictures with people associated with Stormfront.
I don’t care what he’s talking about.
Even if it’s something I might agree on, like the sky being blue, I refuse to give him any more attention. My feelings on Texas’ sovereignty have nothing to do with what he says.
stefanite on April 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
If you don’t want to give him attention, that is certainly fair enough. What bothers me is the people who would claim the sky is green after he says its blue. I’m not saying you are, but it’s obvious that some are.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM
That’s certainly not how they think in New Hampshire, thankfully.
dtestard on April 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” – Abraham Lincoln
JohnJ on April 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Why do you keep propagating this myth.
The 9 of 13 was for the purpose of replacing one constitution with another. The states had already joined the union and in that vote, any colony that didn’t vote to join, did not join.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Ron Paul is right. Allahpundit is wrong.
MedSchoolCatholic on April 20, 2009 at 5:52 PM
We can send Bruno down to Texas to set the good Dr. Paul…um…straight.
Tzetzes on April 20, 2009 at 5:53 PM
I may dislike John McCain….
…but I loathe this creep Ron Paul.
Crawl back under your rock, cretin.
omnipotent on April 20, 2009 at 5:53 PM
Some people here worship the notion of U.S.A. As if it were some kind of divine being with rights that superseed the rights of the people who live there.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 5:54 PM
So, you’re saying as long as the government has enough force available, its laws are right and proper? War doesn’t necessarily settle right and wrong. War answers the question of who is stronger and more determined.
I think we’re a long way from the point at which secession is a good option. But I’m sure George Washington felt that way while fighting the French & Indian War. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Saying that our Declaration of Independence from England made us traitors to the ruler doesn’t mean that it was the wrong decision.
If a majority, or better yet, 2/3 of the voters of a state wanted to secede, what law can you point to that would force them to remain in the union?
hawksruleva on April 20, 2009 at 5:54 PM
there is a quote by John Witherspoon, founder who was President of Princeton and James Madison was taught by in seminary, along these lines. can’t find it at the moment though.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:54 PM
I understand your anger here Allahpundit. But some people have already asked the question of how much tyranny they are willing to live with? You have a long ways to go yet it seems…that’s fine so did many in the colonies. People have been seeing the slow creep of the socialism for some time. Socialism even in its current form in Europe is tyrannical and controls the freedoms of people. Given the choice to live as we are or to live under a government styled under the european socialist government states that exist now there are many who would choose to revolt for freedom then become slaves to the government.
In the state of New York people are quickly losing their rights and businesses being told how to do business. Smoking bans, Trans-fat bans, they were going to attempt to pass a fat tax on non-diet soda. New York is quickly becoming a dictatorial state with the veil of democracy. (Granted the trans fat ban is only in NYC but that is the majority of the state population).
Because of these things the people are leaving the state not to mention due to the gratuitous amounts of tax they are leaving. Expand that across the country and leave people with no place to go and there will be a much greater sentiment of secession or revolution.
You are willing to live with a greater amount of Iron Fist Rule from Government as is evident by you taking up residence in the Big Apple. But others are not and to fault them for believing strongly in freedom instead of understanding and trying to persuade that maybe now is not the time is a fault on you not on them.
theguardianii on April 20, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Just the opinion of Texas Secede. Not mine.
carbon_footprint on April 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Man, you will propagate any myth to support your religion, won’t you.
People could get the impression from you that prior to being absorbed into the US, these lands were created by the US and totally unpopulated.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM
One thing I found interesting is that, during the ’08 primary season, Ron Paul stickers were all over Austin. Huh? Yeah that’s right, the liberal Mecca of Austin. I could only shake my head in disbelief because Austinites are considered to be highly evolved and intelligent, moreso than the rest of the “ignorant hicks” who live in Texas. I’d drive down the street and think “don’t you people know who Ron Paul is and what he stands for?” But like most libs, they all have tunnelvision. Paul was adamently opposed to the Iraq war, and that’s all they cared about. Of course, these same liberals are the ones now mocking Perry for his secession comment. Makes me appreciate my failure to evolve in this town.
Erich66 on April 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM
I agree with Paul about the national-socialist pro-Union Pledge as well. Hitler and Mussolini would be proud of mandatory saluting of the flag in public schools. “Pro-American” should be looked at as pro-freedom and not pro-state. Otherwise it is a useless idea.
The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM
But……aren’t you ALL
bozosBirchers now?strangelet on April 20, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Insurrection would include, as noted in that line, Laws of the Union. That would certainly include a local insurrection, but also one up to and including a collection of states.
The tenth amendment illustrates, frankly, that in some regards the federal government has more authority then the states. That is why that which is reserved, must be reserved. If the states were more powerful, the opposite would be written – that the states don’t have the right to infringe upon the federal government. The federal government is the more powerful in what it has specific authority for because it’s collective will of states, but states have the farther scope of influence. The problem we have now is that states have outsourced state concern to the federal government for either ease or $.
Re: the vote. You don’t have to agree, I’m just saying the intent of the fathers is clear enough when you can consider that 4 states would be bound even in disagreement.
If a state leaves now, they need the moral authority that the Declaration provides, ie. tyranny, violation of natural, or civil law, etc but that will not be a “legal” recourse, it would be the recourse of those whose no longer consent. It’s not exit, it’s overthrow at that point.
Yeah, I don’t mean they are agents. I mean they are only self-determined in the natural order of the states. Meaning – the application to statehood is the addition of a state to a pre-existing arrangement of states with certain qualifications (that a state must adhere to). I don’t mean they are agents, I mean that it is to everyone’s benefit that federal land be organized as states to maximize the collective benefit of freedom and representation.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:57 PM
This illegal/legal stuff is nonsense. If the Fed breaks the contract there is nothing illegal about considering the contract broken.
Limerick on April 20, 2009 at 5:57 PM
I give Paul props for speaking extemporaneously to the camera. However, listening to him stumble along is more acceptable in a personal discussion, not a high quality video.
By the way, why does everyone always call him “Dr. Paul” and not “Rep. Paul”? Is he the only doctor in Congress?
MadisonConservative on April 20, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Agreed.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism, this is something the Anarcho-Capitalist breed of Libertarians dispute and blur together.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
This word you use, “illegal”, I do not think it means what you seem to think it means. Some of you need to develop a deeper understanding of what law is.
Start with the Federalist Papers. Add Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists. Then move on to the really good stuff like Cicero, Aristotle, Montesquieu, and Bastiat.
Try developing an understanding of something before you decide that anyone who disagrees with you is a lunatic. Remove the beam from your own eye, and then you’ll see clearly enough to remove the speck from your neighbor’s.
JohnJ on April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
its the paultards way of saying they are smarter than everyone else.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:59 PM
The SC has also ruled that slaves who move to free states still remain slaves.
The SC has also ruled that the federal govt has the power to regulate speech so long as they swear they are doing it for a good reason.
MarkTheGreat on April 20, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Thanks for clarifying your view.
This is also an extremely fruitful answer, thanks.
What did I say that was a myth? What is my religion?
No, I didn’t mean that Congress voted that land form where there was sea. I do mean that Congress purchased land or conquered it and it came into it’s power as a territory (not automatically a state).
Hope that clears up the myth!
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Actually, the best place to start would be to actually read the Declaration of Independence.
JohnJ on April 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM
there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism, this is something the Anarcho-Capitalist breed of Libertarians dispute and blur together.
jp on April 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
OK, what’s the difference?
The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Indeed,
Secession is neither allowed nor prohibited by the Constitution. There is a very telling statement regarding how the federal government came to be such a powerful force in our nation. It goes: Prior to the Civil War, when people spoke of this country they said “The United States Are.” After the war, they said, “The United States Is.”
President Lincoln forced the issue by taking up arms to return those states who seceded into the Federal Fold. The Civil War was never about slavery, but about State’s Rights. The war became a war to free the slaves when Lincoln issued the Emancipation proclamation. Even then, he only freed those slaves in states which were still in rebellion. Slavery continued for many years after the Civil War, until finally fully abolished in the late 19th century.
The federal Government has vastly exceeded it’s authority as allowed in the Constitution, and it must needs be reminded, forcefully if necessary, that the primary authority of government lies within the various states and commonwealth, and NOT with the Federal Government. The Federal Government exists only to do those things for which the states are unequipped or unable to do for themselves.
The Constitution allows three things for the Federal Government. Provide for the Common Defense, Regulate Interstate Commerce, and Promote the General Welfare. All other areas are reserved for the state by the 10th Amendment.
It is past time that the several states took the Federal Government to task to remind it of what it’s limited role, and to demand that the Federal Government take it’s hands off the tiller and return to it’s rightfully small place in the governance of these United States.
respects,
AW1 Tim on April 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
If Texas had seceded in 1859, would the Federal Government have sent troops in? I doubt it.
Speedwagon82 on April 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
I used to dislike Ron Paul, until the Appeaser in Chief was selected. Now I think he would do a damn better job than that piece of dog poo we have running the country (into the ground). I welcome Paulites, Libertarians, anyone into the fold who has a better grasp on reality than the people trying to turn us into the EU. Paul has some good points. He also has some ideas I disagree with wholeheartedly.
Our country is so effed right now it’s ridiculous.
The point is, when you have a total incompetent whose goal is to turn us into a National Socialist nation- you may end up with someone who swings too far the other direction as a result. We’re in the Weimar Republic now and I don’t want our history to follow that history. If you know what I mean…
NTWR on April 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Thanks for a very well written summation.
Loxodonta on April 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
So… like… when the founding fathers… you know, said that if the governemnt ever became opressive and tyranical, we should overthrow it and start anew. That meant that “Well, just before this new Federal Government thingy kicks in, after that, ya’ll are stuck!”
I know you get it Mark, but the kneejerkers to RP’s just discussiing this as an option, haven’t bothered thinking through just HOW the states or “The People” could throw off tyrany. Secession IS one way, Armed insurrection another. Secession is a deliberate step not taken in haste and armed insurrection is kneejerk mobs reacting to emotional feelings.
SO, doesn’t Congressman Paul evidence the “deliberative” track here, and the “Paul’s NUTS” kneejerkers evidence the emotive drive of the armed insurrection mob?
Hmmmm.
44Magnum on April 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Federalism is partly based on mobility.
A perons ability to move from one state to another if the state and local government become to tyranical
We vote with our feet.
What happens when the federal government becomes the same way.
It is a good arguement to make just for the pressure it could put on other states.
Why should should I pay higher taxes just because New york and California and Michigan are mismanaged.
What choices do I have.
You hate Ron Paul all you want but if this economy all goes way down the tubes then this sort of talk will be common place.
It might just make good buisness sense to split the country in three or more manageble parts. It doesn’t mean there will be a war. We could even have defense treatys stating if one gets attacked it would be an attack on us all.
It is highly unlikely this will happen in fact not a chance in hell but free speech is free speech.
kangjie on April 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM
I don’t think it’s nonsense, I think your 2nd sentence is the point. When the contract is broken, it’s extra-legal action.
The Declaration was written because they thought the contract with England was broken. That gave the authority, by recalling both abridgments of natural and civil law. The action they took, from England’s point of view was illegal (which is why it was so honorable – “Give me liberty of give me death!”)
Should such an event take place today, the same scenario applies. This is not provision for legal exit of states, therefore if a state were to attempt it, it would be a question that everyone would have to weight – have we reached tyranny that justifies extra-legal action.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »