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: « Previous 1 2 3
…TE Lawrence, I believe, said that to have a sucessful revolution you only need to have a about 10% committed to it, and the rest at least blase’ about it. Other theorists have wratcheted that number down to the single digits in the years since…and, given the history of the 20th Century, and the popularity of “revolutions” (almost as popular as “czars”, ironically), folks have been evangelizing the gullible and reaping the rewards.
Point: “nutcases”, or to be more accurate, stupid people, aren’t any kind of a “new” majority. They’re that 90% who’re mild and quiescent while you’re out there “fighting for the working class” or whatever you call your latest totalitarian outrage. Mr. Barnum was right. So was Mr. Lincoln (I admit through gritted teeth)…you can fool some people all of the time.
If you’re on the right side of history you still have to convince stupid people, people who don’t see beyond the end of their noses, people who don’t realize that vague promises of “change” may mean bad change, and people who just don’t care so long as they’re left alone that they’re involved, like it or not.
History is relentless…and totalitarians are naturally paranoid. They want not only your obedience while also wanting your permission…fence-sitters and the non-aligned
can’t be trusted. They go first.
Puritan1648 on April 20, 2009 at 10:30 PM
So lets say the federal government imposes a geographic tax on a particular state. This is unconstitutional obviously. Why couldn’t this state secede? You have failed to show that the power to secede was delegated to the federal government, therefore you have failed to show it is not retained by the states or people. If the people of a particular state have given their state the power to secede in their particular constitution… where is the issue?
I mean certainly, you can disagree about whether a state should secede, but whether one can secede is a very simple case of looking at whether that power was delegated to the federal government. I don’t see why its any different than something like universal healthcare, which you can oppose at the federal level as being beyond their powers, but must at least recognize as possible at the state level. Then it becomes an issue of merits, not constitutionality.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 10:36 PM
I love hypothetical situations. So, let’s say in four years the federal government declares a state of emergency and cancels all national elections and insists that it is too dangerous a time to make any major personnel changes for the foreseeable future. What should the citizenry do? And, what is the tipping point that should cause the public to rise up against its government?
P.S. I don’t believe this is going to happen, but just want to hear some responses if such a scenario played out. And what everyone’s final straw, if you even have one, would be.
kagai on April 20, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Several places in the country have carried out de facto secessions…San Francisco, Eugene/Portland (Oregon), Burlington(Vermont), Key West, Acadia (Maine), Greenwich Village, etc.
That is, it’s quite OK for various granola-munchers, homosexuals, Code Pinkers, Marxists and the like to virtually take over entire areas.
But, I am hard-pressed to think where Conservatives can go in order to hang out and enjoy traditional American values, safety from criminals/gangs, drugs, obscenity, and so on. To the Leftists, such places are viewed as abominable vacuums that must be filled in with themselves ASAP!
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 20, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Why the bad bag on secession? That’s what our founding fathers did. It wasn’t a revolution. They didn’t plan on storming England and overthrowing the King. They seceded from the British Empire over excessive taxation, oppression and general mistreatment. Sound familiar? Secession was placed into some of the earliest state constitutions. Secession was valid and illegal recourse for the founding fathers. It was a valid and legal recourse for the Confederate states. It is a valid and legal recourse for those states that don’t want to be dragged down into leftist tyranny. And I for one would move to one of those states the minute they made that decision. I’d rather die for state and individual rights than live a servile and cowardly life under the tyranny of Obama’s jack-booted thugs.
chicagojedi on April 20, 2009 at 10:42 PM
If you dismiss Art 1 Sec 8 of the Const., Art 8 of the AofC and the inherit acknowledge of the individual state yielding to the collection in the 9 of 13 establishment of the Const., then I don’t know what you expect me to add. These facts do not exist in a vacuum. The conclusion seems obvious to me.
I have failed to convince you, sure that’s clear. I’m not trying to ‘convince’ actually, just trying to show the reasons. If you dismiss the reasons that I’ve presented, then I would also agree with you here: I don’t see why its any different than something like universal healthcare, which you can oppose at the federal level as being beyond their powers, but must at least recognize as possible at the state level.
But I don’t, so I don’t. What more is there to say?
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 10:45 PM
I haven’t dismissed anything. Art 1 Section 8 of the Constitution in this instance says the federal government can suppress insurrections. Whether a secession is an insurrection depends on whether it is lawful or not. You point to the articles of confederation to say that any state deciding to secede on its own would be unlawful – but the articles of confederation were replaced by the Constitution. The Constitution is not a mere addition to the articles, they replaced the articles in their entirety. The articles of confederation are in effect today as much as the mayflower compact is in effect today – that is to say, they aren’t.
So under our current system, who handles secession? The Constitution doesn’t give it to congress or the federal government. Therefore, either following the 10th amendment or the simple fact the federal government has only those powers delegated to it already – with the rest falling to the states or the people – obviously the issue of secession falls to the states or the people.
Your point about the ratification would only have bearing if the document they were signing onto delegated the power to secede to the federal government, but it doesn’t, so I don’t see any relevance to this issue.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 10:55 PM
It’s relevance is that a state could oppose the Union at it’s outset and still have been included in the Union.
Somehow, I’m now supposed to accept that once in the Union it could oppose the Union and not be included. No, it is clearly evident that the individual state is bound to the collective will of the other states. It’s very simple: a state could oppose Union and still be bound.
No one. It is not given as an option, because it is not considered an option. Built on the foundation of Sec XIII of the Articles, the Constitution says, hey we aren’t even going to give the option of cutting and running because these years have proven that we must hang together or die separately.
Well that’s a whole different argument, which Adams would refute.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 11:01 PM
it is the same thing…. if people of a state vote to succede and “throw off such government” so they can “provide new guards for their future security” then it is exactly the same thing. How is succession any different than what we did to England? Were we not “states” (territories) of the British empire? Your point only holds water if the state government choses to succeed without a vote from the people…
BadBrad on April 20, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Every day from the day that the 9th state ratified, a state could oppose Union and still be bound. To be painstakingly clear.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Right, so then you enter into a separation that could be morally right, but would still not be provided for legally in the Constitution.
I don’t mean separation cannot happen, or that it would not ever happen. But it is not provided for by our form of government, so it is, in essence, a rebellion. Whether it would be opposed through violence like in 1860s, who knows.
I don’t see how it is. It would be an act of war, prosecuted or not.
My point about state’s being organized federal territory is to this: these states (not Texas) exist legally because of the Federal government. They do not have the authority to act unConstitutionally. Therefore any vote on the state level for secession would be illegal, and no longer a state in the Union, but the collection of individuals. Functionally matter? Not really.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Lets for a moment pretent there is a Constitution which says two things explicitly. One, “this document will go into effect when 9 of 13 states ratify,” and two, “any state can leave this union if their legislature votes to do so.” What is hard to believe about this? This is almost exactly what the Constitution does, in a roundabout way.
While it is dubious that the articles of confederation could have been replaced with only 9 of 13 states supporting it (the articles of confederation required 13, remember) this issue was ultimately avoided when all states signed on. But the document they signed on to – or would have been forced into – was one which left them an out. Its kind of a silly concept if you think about it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen… it did.
The 10th Amendment actually has another part to it:
“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.”
Were what you are saying to be the case, the power would have been prohibited by the Constitution. By not delegating it to the federal government, and not prohibiting it to the states, it was left with the states and people.
Once more, the articles of confederation were replaced outright, not merely added to. While the Constitution and articles had different terms for ratification/amending (articles needed 13 states to support amendments,) any issues this might have caused were avoided when all 13 signed onto the Constitution in 1790. Thus even by the articles own terms, it was replaced by the Constitution.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 11:22 PM
There are many ways a secession could be illegal under the constitution – for instance if a militia took over a state. That militia is not the legitimate civil authority on the issue. Even if under some scenario it was a “morally right” militia. But if the legitimate civil authority decided to secede, it would not be illegal – it would be legal and constitutional. The constitution does not delegate this power to the federal government, nor does it prohibit this power to the states… therefore it falls to the states/people, and becomes an issue of state level constitutionality.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Then you would have a Constitution where you could legally secede. That’s not the one we have, however.
It appears a silly concept if you reject the obvious point that the individual state was subject to the collective will of the states. You may recall that the states were not in the comfort that they are now. The Union was formed for survival. Even after the Revolution was won, both England and France had expectations of our collapse and a gain to be had.
But it’s not silly, because they understood that is was together or not at all. All chips down, so to speak. And so they did. Whatever the arguments against the legal authority to create such a bind, the arguments that 9 of 13 and the subjection of one state to the collective will of the other states, was accepted when they unanimously ratified that Constitution.
So, sure what if they hadn’t? Then my argument wouldn’t hold. But they did assent.
There is no a governmental power of secession.
Of course. But it did not occur in a vacuum. It built functionally on the Articles and it built legally on the Articles.
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 11:32 PM
I meant to weigh in on this question earlier.
The federal constitution itself presumes that not every State would agree to each proposed amendment thereto. Think about that: with all of the sacrifices of sovereignty over the years, the State which did not authorize such a sacrifice was nevertheless anticipated to be subject to it.
For the federal constitution to no longer bind the several States would require an amendment releasing them or nullifying the union.
[I don't care what Texans say about treaties, either. They should've read the fine print--or at least insisted upon a special constitutional provision excepting their State.]
Now, none of the above changes the fact that, despite the colonies being under British rule, they declared their independence. But such movements are not made without force of arms and the shedding of blood. Don’t speak such words as “secession” if you’re not ready to pay the ultimate price for it, because last I checked there are those who would fight to preserve the union.
cackcon on April 20, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I’d be fine with we Texans not seceding if the United States restored the Articles of Confederation over the Constitution for sure.
The Dean on April 20, 2009 at 11:37 PM
It is indeed silly, in the same way that being forced to agree to sign onto a project you can voluntarily leave is somewhat silly. They accepted the concept that a document could be forced by 9 onto 13 – but not just any document, one which left the ability to leave to each state.
Because there its not given to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states? If they didn’t want it to happen, they would have prohibited it to the states… but didn’t, therefore it exists but is retained by the states.
Its as simple as this. Were the articles of confederation still in effect, and all 50 states, the president, and all other legitimate required civil authorities to sign onto a proposal that Texas secede, this would not be an insurrection. It would be a legal secession. Those would be the rules of the game.
The Constitution is in effect today. When a power isn’t delegated, and it isn’t prohibited, it falls to the states or people. Secession therefore falls to the states, and are subject to the civil authorities of the states. If a movement to secede follows these rules of the game, it isn’t an insurrection. Its legitimate.
Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 11:44 PM
*Because
thereits not given to the federal government,Rangeley on April 20, 2009 at 11:45 PM
That has been tried before. Several free and sovereign states left the Union and the Union soon after spent enormous quantities of blood and treasure to conquer them.
Thus, governments do not derive their authority from consent of the governed. A government’s authority is derived from its capacity to enforce its will upon the governed. The people’s consent is merely a justification for the use of that force- not the source of the government’s power.
Today we have a ‘constitutional’ government that blatantly ignores its constitution, having violated the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amendments with barely taking notice to the “highest law of the land”.
To debate the ‘rights’ or ‘sovereignty’ of the people or the states is useful only in that it may mobilize those capable of using force to bring their power to bear.
As long as the government believes that it can do as it pleases, it will. As long as the people believe the government has the authority to do so, it will. Once the people- not the tye-dyed, unbathed, ‘artist’ who makes a living “speaking truth to power” but farmer Joe and his buddies down at the NRA- decide to put the government on notice that it’s overstepped its authority then one of two things will happen:
1. The government will acknowledge it has acted inappropriately and will correct its behavior or
2. The government will take action to silence those that claim it has acted beyond its authority.
Thus far the Feds have elected, ever so softly, number 2.
Browncoatone on April 20, 2009 at 11:46 PM
I’ve always thought the Pledge of Allegiance was weird and refused to do it.
universalagent on April 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM
They weren’t forced, they signed voluntarily.
In accepting that, you have accepted the crux of the argument. The states gave up their self-determination when they ratified. If they had held the line there, then perhaps a clause for secession would have been added later. In fact, if I have time to spare this week, I might look and see if such a motion was offered as an amendment. I doubt it, but I’d be interested to see. Regardless, they accepted it, and here we are.
I doubt they wanted states murdering their citizens, but they didn’t forbid it either. Yes, that argument is silly. Look in your own state constitution and tell me if the document provides a method for it’s own dissolving. Then argue to me, finding it absent, why. I’m eager to hear that. If it is a power, they must address it or it has fallen to the people, and the state has no authority to act on what is reserved to the people.
Right. Where is there a power of secession? (Interestly people usually refer to this as a right, as in ‘states rights’ but rights are reserved for the people (Am. 9) so now it’s a ‘power’, which fits the language of the 10th).
Spirit of 1776 on April 20, 2009 at 11:58 PM
It’s kind of amusing to see folks criticize secession as unconstitutional. The thing itself has become faulty. If a right to abortion can be found in its penumbras and emanations, why not a right to secede? Many libtards think the death penalty is unconstitutional even though it’s explicitly sanctioned. What is the point of constitutional arguments when the document ceases to have any fixed meaning?
And it’s all blather anyway. If a state like Texas did secede, the others could not muster the will to oppose it. There’s no Lincoln on the horizon I can see.
edshepp on April 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Why project the faults of people (judges) on the document? Does a right to an abortion exist?
How is that the fault of the document? Seems to me to be a fault of people who twist the document to suit their will.
Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM
What makes it silly is that they accepted the premise that states could be forced into an agreement they could voluntarily leave.
Well, putting aside issues of whether murdering citizens would violate rights and just taking this at face value, lets say the Constitution doesn’t prohibit a state from murdering them. It would then fall to the state level. Secession also falls to the state level, and whether a state has a legal means to secede would be a state issue. Secession would have to be consistent with the proper civil authority – the states – for it to not be an insurrection. I said it earlier, I dont know much about state constitutions across the country, but I don’t believe (could be wrong) that any currently give a way to secede. But my point isn’t that they currently do, but that they could, as it is a power that falls to them. They could exercise it.
While the federal government has strictly enumerated powers delegated to it, states do not and act as a sort of catch all to the powers not delegated to the feds, nor prohibited to it. Secession is neither, therefore its a power that could be acted on, potentially, at the state level. But as I said above and earlier, it isn’t necessarilly consistent with state laws at this time – Im just saying it could be.
Rangeley on April 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Yeah. They didn’t. That’s why it’s not silly. They accepted the premise they were binding themselves together. In a Union. A union ‘more perfect’ then the Articles.
Ah, but that’s my point, though I made it in a poor way. There are things that don’t need to be said – they are understood; states can’t murder people, it’s not a reserved power. I thought the example was a touch silly because it’s hyperbolic, but the point is that some things are already known.
For instance, the entire absence of the Bill of Rights from the original is not because the founders thought these things weren’t important, it was that they were assumed. This is the same with exiting the Union. It was understood to be binding. For better, for worse.
So counties could secede from states. Because your state constitution doesn’t specifically address it by name.
If (if) they entered into with a state constitution specifically providing for secession, you would have an argument. The fact that there are none, tells us something. But sure, if the terms of the contract were different, then yeah the terms of the contract would be different.
Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Anyway, I’m OT already, so I leave the floor to you.
Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Someone may have already covered this …
Francis Bellamy was a Baptist preacher and wrote the original pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist (someone confused thinking Jesus was a socialist). My understanding is that historians believe he was expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward, a socialist.
Due to his socialist viewpoint, the church told the pastor to hit the road.
We homeschool our kids and we do not practice the pledge. Matter of fact … I do not know of any other homeschool family in our area that does.
AZ_Redneck on April 21, 2009 at 12:42 AM
This is a tough subject because when the Federal Government defies the Constitution and impinges on the State’s sovereignty and the 9th and 10th Amendments, a state would have no other recourse but to seceed and for the fact that a state voluntarily applies for statehood it would seem that the same state would have the right, if only my a clear majority of votes, to rescind that application and quit the union to address the tyranny directed toward that state in violation of the Constitution.
First and foremost should be the violation of the Constitution by the Federal Government directed at that state, which in practical purspose, would make the powers and the use of powers by that Federal Government, null and void. A government whos powers are granted by the Constitution cannot defy the limits on those powers because when that government does, the basis of the act of deying the Constitution puts that very government in a paradox of making their own powers null and void.
We see that in U.S. history during the Civil War when the Federal Government violated Article 4, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 4, allowing (or more accurately, promoting), that a new legislature be elected violating the vote and the will of the people, and that a new state, West Virginia, be cast from the Sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia. Also we see that Lincoln illegally dissolved the duly elected State Legislature of the State of Missouri and seated a new State’s Legislature to prevent Missouri from secceeding. Even if a Supreme Court would have found that secession would have been unconstitutional (to which no such court has ever found as such), violating the Constitution to enforce the Constitution is just as ….unconstitutional.
Personally, I am against secession, I don’t want to give up one square inch of the U.S. to leftist, fascist violators of our Constitution, nor do I want to lose one of our 50 states because this illegitimate Federal Government refuses to abide by the very document that grants them any powers in the first place.
What I see most troubling is that this idiot, this fraud, Ron Paul who doesn’t know 7th grade U.S. history nor most laws in this country, would be a focus to this.
nelsonknows on April 21, 2009 at 12:52 AM
The thing already known was that the federal government only had the powers given to it. It couldn’t infringe on free speech, because it was never given the power to – that it was later explicitly prohibited from doing so was a redundant act of placing emphasis on something they felt was really important. Saying that the states entered into the Constitution with the understanding that they could not leave doesn’t flow with this – they entered in with the understanding that the powers not given to the federal government were retained by the states. They entered in knowing what the document was.
If there was a state constitution which said any power not delegated to the state government or prohibited to the county, fell to the county, then yes. But I don’t know of this being the case in any state. Counties are divisions of states that are granted powers, but don’t have any constitutional powers in the sense a state has.
This is my argument – that its not unconstitutional (national level) to secede. Its a state issue. Texas didn’t enter into the union with some provision that they could leave, but if people in a state today decide they do want to leave, they could change the laws, change their state constitution if necessary, and voila. It would be a lawful secession. Unlike if a county decided it wanted to leave in a state where no such power was left to them. It might be moral, it might be the right thing to secede, but it wouldn’t be legal. A state seceding, if consistent with its own laws, would be legal.
Rangeley on April 21, 2009 at 1:11 AM
In fairness to Ron Paul, I’ve heard he drinks a lot.
Kevin M on April 21, 2009 at 1:34 AM
If two NFL teams are playing, and the referees willfully ignore the rule violations of one team while simultaneously changing the rules to benefit them, that is no longer a valid contest. There is no point in continuing the game.
It’s not as if states can appeal to a higher power against a federal government that refuses to behave within its constitutionally-mandated limits. How can they expect to stay in the union if the federal government won’t abide by its own laws?
TheMightyMonarch on April 21, 2009 at 2:10 AM
Of course the fault is in people (and not just judges) as it is in all things. What did you think I meant? That the letters had become blurred?
It is perfectly reasonable to speak of our constitutional system being broken. And the fault is deep. The Framers were great men but fallible as are we all. They created a system dependendent of the virtue of men and that is folly.
Is this semantic quibble your best critique to my point? Arguing about what the Constitution “really” means and whether secession is “legal” is a waste of time (unless passing time is your goal). It’s long past time when the Court decided anything of consequence on that basis. Rather they have a preferred policy and backfill the reasoning.
They will even lie. The recent Boumediene case is a prime example. If you have not read it, you should. Read what it says about the Eisentrager precedent then go read that decision too. You’ll find that Boumediene completely misrepresents Eisentrager. I guess it wasn’t convenient to explicitly reverse it.
Does it? Yes, the Court has so ruled. And that is our broken constitutional system at work.
edshepp on April 21, 2009 at 2:16 AM
Let’s ask the man most responsible for writing the Constitution….James Madison
“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign
body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own
voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if
established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”
James Madison
Source: Federalist No. 39, 1788
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of
auxiliary precautions.
James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788
“Since the general civilization of mankind,
I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms
of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power
than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison 1788
What would James Madison think? He would probably think the U.S. is in a WHOLE lot of trouble.
nelsonknows on April 21, 2009 at 6:07 AM
whats funny is that Alex Jones’ infowars website gets twice the traffic that hotair gets…
equanimous on April 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Rangley,
When you are dealing with religious devotion, facts are meaningless.
MarkTheGreat on April 21, 2009 at 8:12 AM
equanimous on April 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM
It’s not funny, it’s pathetic.
catmman on April 21, 2009 at 8:38 AM
after the civil war North Carolina rewrote its constitution, it is illegal in North Carolina to desert the Union…
equanimous on April 21, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Or maybe he puts the American people above the people of other countries. I am not an isolationist but believe Ron Paul was the best candidate last year. He is not isolationist because he has sympathies for the terrorists or rogue nations. He strictly follows the beliefs of the founders and is against nation building (which I thought was a strong conservative tenet at one time). Because of this he is a coward? Being a United States Marine who has served many combat tours already, I have no qualms about fighting for my country anywhere. However, it does make more sense to secure our borders first before we start going on a new island hopping campaign.
RightXBrigade on April 21, 2009 at 9:26 AM
It is not I that am unwilling to engage the facts. You, sir, are the one cursing the wind.
Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 9:32 AM
If it is a waste time, then I don’t understand how to interrupt your statement. Shall I then disregard all structure because the law has been abused?
And you didn’t ask for my best critique. I just made a comment or two.
Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 9:35 AM
If secession is a power, as you say, under our structure, any government that didn’t claim it, the structure under it could. That’s what I mean.
Your argument: So if secession = power, but not written about in Constitution, it falls to the state.
My negation: Per Amend 9 and 10, if secession were a power (I don’t think it is, I think it’s something else entirely), then when not written in a state Constitution, it would fall to the people. Hence, my comment that counties (or cities if you prefer) could secede from the state in the same way you suggest states can.
If it a power and the states don’t claim it (they don’t in their constitutions) then it would fall to the people.
But secession is not a power. States exist by approval of their peers. They entered on a vote of approval.
The sort of vote you are speaking of, would be an act that is not provided for in the state constitutions, which were approved. Therefore, it would be extra-legal by the state, seen as illegal by the federal government and other states. That’s what I mean, the contract would be different.
Spirit of 1776 on April 21, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I supported Mitt Romney during the primaries, but given the chance to cast my vote again, I would cast it for Dr. Paul.
He was far and away the best of all candidates on both sides.
Hope he runs again in 2012
Borislav on April 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Hope he runs again in 2012
Borislav on April 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM
That’s smart thinking.
Let’s put a shrill, 77 year old man with all his accompanying baggage up against Barack Obama.
catmman on April 21, 2009 at 10:22 AM
He was for sure the most honest as far as voiving his true opinions. And, there is no doubt he could clean up some of the government abuse.
I worry about welfare, and the addicts it produces. 36 million Americans are on foodstamps. Over 10% of the population. This liberal welfare is going to create a country full of Katrina victims with no gumption, initiative, or drive. And, not to mention,never experience the rewards of hard work and a job well done.
Welfare is juxtopposed to personal responsibility and self reliance, which is what made this country successful. Welfare addicted zombies are a poor substitution.
saiga on April 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM
“That’s smart thinking.
Let’s put a shrill, 77 year old man with all his accompanying baggage up against Barack Obama.”
Who would you propose? It seems like with some of our other choices we would just get more of the same. More big gov, more entitlements, more stimulus, more rash foreign policy.
Borislav on April 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM
My argument is based entirely on the concept that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or the people. If the states don’t take it either, it doesn’t necessarilly fall to the counties, unless their constitution has a similar clause where any powers not given to the states fall to the counties. It otherwise wouldn’t fall to the counties and then towns or cities, it would fall to the people.
What would this entail at the individual level? I’m not entirely sure, theres multiple ways you could take it. “Universal healthcare” is not a power given to the feds, its not given to states, so does “universal healthcare” fall to individuals? Or just the ability to individually determine your own healthcare plan? Obviously an individual can’t make a state secede or even a town, but could leave themselves. If they want to further give a state the power to leave the nation, in the same way they could give a state the ability to mandate some universal healthcare program onto everyone, they could. They could likewise have the state give counties or towns this ability if they wanted.
I’m not just talking about holding a vote to secede, and if it hasn’t been made clear yet, I don’t think anyone should be seceding. But in principle, if people of a state were to decide they wanted to secede, and changed the necessary laws at the state level to make it legal there, they do not have to answer to any higher authority. In principle, states can leave the union constitutionally because that power was not delegated to the feds, nor prohibited to the states.
Rangeley on April 21, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Borislav on April 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM
To answer your question – I don’t know.
Herr Doktor is just as guilty of these things as the other pols in Washington.
I do know that by 2012, he will be 77 years old, and gets more shrill as time goes by. Contrary to the very few – VERY FEW – decent things he does say about economics, he is a crank.
catmman on April 21, 2009 at 12:53 PM
There go those Libertarians again.
Sultry Beauty on April 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I think Rangeley certainly has the upper hand in this back and forth. A comment, though.
When the Constitution was created, our founders had just gone through a very expensive, rather bloody war. They were on the edge of defeat numerous times. In order to address their experiences so that no tyrant may ever again hold sway over the people, a number of protections were written into the Constitution. Many of those were contemporaneously thought to be so obvious as to not merit inclusion, but were at the insistence of a number of state conventions.
Consider: the Second Amendment exists to preserve the ability of a free people to resist tyranny. The First Amendment protects the right of the people to speak out against tyranny. And so on.
With these protections against potential tyranny, and in the context of the long hard struggle for independence endured by the founders, I think it’s nearly nonsensical to suggest that they would have made peaceful seccession outright illegal. Indeed, in my opinion, based on a largeer view of the history at play at the time, I think the ability of a state to peacefully leave the union was one that went without saying. It’s actually very difficult to imagine a group of people fresh from defeating tyranny and so committed to keeping it from happening to us again being in favor of forcing a state to participate in a union against the will of the people.
Powers to put down insurrections are there to resist efforts to overthrow the US government, not to prevent states from leaving peacefully.
It’s also useful to remember that the Constitution is, fundamentally, a list of things the Federal Government *can* do. I see nothing in there that empowers it to prevent states from leaving the union.
JohnTant on April 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM
I used to think Ron Paul was a nut, mostly based on the portrayal by HotAir. But I find now I’m coming to have more and more respect for the guy. He thinks about these things dispassionately and he’s honest.
Allahpundit never did address the main point: secession is indeed american. Doesn’t mean it’s good, but it does mean you shouldn’t dismiss it as some sort of crazy notion.
Gaunilon on April 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
There are THAT many insane people in the U.S.?
DAMN, we ARE IN TROUBLE.
nelsonknows on April 21, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I SEE THE RON PAUL FRUITCAKES ARE OUT EN MASSE. Do yourself a favor people actually LOOOK at what Ron Paul has said in the past…this idiot doesn’t know simple 5th grade history.
nelsonknows on April 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3