state sovereignty bills in over 2 dozen states

A while ago I wondered if we'd all be better off if we stopped trying to reach a compromise on how to govern this country (so-called conservative agenda v. so-called liberal agenda) and let each state vote on whether to be 'red' or 'blue' and then each group could move forward with their vision of 'how things ought to be' and stop bickering with each other, which seems to be the only thing they accomplish.  (Oh that and spending trillions of dollars)

And so today I came across an article about the State Sovereignty Movement.

10th Amendment Center

Article in Charleston City Paper

From what I can see, the conservative grassroots is wasting no time in mobilizing for... something.  Tea Parties?  a revolution?

So I'm asking again. 

Break-ups aren't pleasant, but they can be undertaken with maturity and class. Wouldn't it be better to have a national discussion about our differences (without any blame -- people are just different - that's to be expected) decide whether to have a vote, and then proceed according to the results?

Red people, blue people, y'all just aren't that into each other.

Sure... it's all fun and games until someone puts out an eye destroys a hard won union.

:)

What really gripes my ass is the fact that when conservatives are in power it's all about 'country' and 'patriotism' and standing together in support of our government.

right. because they were doing the right thing.  obviously everyone should stand together in support of that.

but the other guys? they're doing the same wrong things the previous administration did. so obviously they must be opposed and rebelled against if necessary.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

but the other guys? they're doing the same wrong things the previous administration did. so obviously they must be opposed and rebelled against if necessary.

Three years ago people who were protesting the actions of the government as not being in line with the constitution were being soundly denounced as traitors - by people like Chuck Norris.

I love irony.

All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

George Orwell - Notes on Nationalism (pub. 1945)

Substitute "British Tory", "Europe" and "India" with whatever group, region and country you find most astute for the present times.

I have actually been long attracted to the notion of west coast secession.  Not only does it make geological sense (as the west coast is a relatively recent addition to the North American continent), but it makes social and political sense. 

Residents of California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia -- don't you want to eat tofu, develop environmental regulations, and grow medical marijuana unencumbered by oriental* hegemony? Why continue to take orders from states with misbranded products (mayonnaise called Hellmann's? please.), lax municipal recycling programs, and inferior rappers? Well, no more.  Fellow residents of the land where national parks, democrats, and cold-water ports abound, we must break loose from our chains!

 

*look up the origins of the word before you flame me

"South Carolina has very little in common with the west coast, if you think about it."

- Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina

We need the west coast to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming into the 21st century - California has been the forerunner in environmental issues for years.

Huh? What's wrong with Hellmann's mayonnaise (apart from the calories?) It tastes better than Kraft.

My concern with the state to state thing is the people who would be stuck if their state changed over to something else. We've already talked in another thread about how many miles it takes some people to get to clinics and such, and not everyone can afford to just move to a state more to their liking.

Original Post by coffincritter:

Huh? What's wrong with Hellmann's mayonnaise (apart from the calories?) It tastes better than Kraft.

My concern with the state to state thing is the people who would be stuck if their state changed over to something else. We've already talked in another thread about how many miles it takes some people to get to clinics and such, and not everyone can afford to just move to a state more to their liking.

i bet the blue states would  help people relocate if they were stuck in a red state and didn't want to be.

maybe the red states would too, except that they're against spending public money for things that individuals should pay for, so maybe not.

the real difficulty would be when families disagree and want to go separate ways.

So what....50 individual countries then? 

Meh.  If I wanted to be like Europe, I'd just move there.

Well, the last 20 years have certainly seen the polarization of Democrats and Republicans.  I would say the precursors were trickle-down-economics and NAFTA.  That was the beginning of the end.

People don't, the largest, lowest common denominator anyway, usually think for themselves.  They are easily influenced by media, which is owned by fast-food corps and Wallymart.  Didjall know that last years' stock market closed with only two companies in the black... Walmart and McDonald's.  What's that tell ya about our so-called culture?  Our country is in a mess and we have to make some radical changes to get through this. 

I think the idea you are talking about, the states preceding superseding federal law is not such a bad idea, but polarizing the country in "blue" and "red" poles will eventually lead to another civil war, I think.  Don't think for one minute that war wasn't money-motivated.  Slavery was big business and getting rid of it was not only humane but very profitable for the winners of that war.  Had it not been for that last reason, it, nor would any other war ever have been fought.  Not by the white man from Europe, anyway, now American. 

So IMO, federal law should set a general standard, like say the FDA, which all states must adhere to, but may exceed regulation mandates of food quality, if they so wish.  Example, the Oregon Tilth standard for organic foods is much stricter than that of the FDA.  But on issues like, say medical marijuana, I think the federal govt should turn its attention to keeping it from entering US borders and let the states decide, by vote, how to handle the domestic end of it.  It would be more of a domestic product and taxable this way.  So, in essence, a state should be able to vote on its own laws if the majority of its voting population agree to differ from federal standard.  But packaging the polarized platforms is too generalized.  What will the people who vote Republican but believe abortion should be legal do?  And what about the Democrat who wants less federal spending on Medicaid and state-welfare?  Of what about the Liberal who is against medical marijuana?  The gay Republican?  The issues should be offered-up and also there should be non-profit, non-biased publications made and mailed or emailed to every registered voter for that particular voter's district. So ppl should vote on the issues and nto a political campaign.  That's like buying a pair of shoes because you think the brand will make you a better person or keep you from being mistaken for one of the 'enemy' or the 'other' who sport that some other corporate logo.  (feeling pretty certain I just pissed-off a number of ppl) Sorry.  But I think the truth is more important than ettiquette. 

So less federal govt interfering with domestic and state policy, and more concerned with international and immigration issues. This way the states can figure out ways to bring in revenue to pay for programs to support its population; roads maint, sewage, welfare, unemployment,... Then people can just live where they are happiest or change where they do live, if possible.  Have I made my point? I'm gonna stop now.  This is getting to be a rant. 

Original Post by coffincritter:

Huh? What's wrong with Hellmann's mayonnaise (apart from the calories?) It tastes better than Kraft.

Of course it tastes better than Kraft, but it has the wrong name!  The same product is marketed as Best Foods in the western states, hence the joke...

to answer # 11, I think it's more likely that there would be 3 new countries, not 50.

new england states, mid-atlantic states, ohio, minnesota, wisconsin, illinois, maybe iowa would form a new country, perhaps Atlantica.

california, oregon, washington state, and possibly nevada would form a new country, perhaps Liberaland.

and all the other states would form a new country, not jesusland, but something along those lines

new mexico and arizona might choose to join back up with mexico - hard to say

florida might go solo and be its own country, perhaps Floridia -- i say that because Florida is just different.

But check this out, the Georgia Senate has passed a resolution that says that if the federal government does something that the state legislature of Georgia believes to be unconstitutional, then the u.s. constitution is null and void, and the country is dissolved, boom, just like that.

how 'bout that?

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government.

emphasis added.

link

aside: i kind of hate legalese.

Exactly how binding and enforceable is a "resolution"?  Is it the same as the actual passage of a state law?

And I thought Texas vs. White deemed unilateral secession illegal.

My thoughts are that we can't have a NATIONAL discussion about ANYTHING without BLAME.......It seems to me that any number of people, whether of a nation, a state, a family, even as few as just two persons, in contact with each other long enough, will soon find areas of disagreement, and , when faced with the real threat of losing something highly valued or not, almost always resort to BLAME.

In times of great national peril, as in during World War II, we, as Americans saw clearly beyond smaller, often petty differences and worked together for our nation's good. Are our present problems so big now that we can't solve them? Would we as citizens of numerous little independent states suddenly find ourselves living with no one who disagreed with us? Do we really want to chop our country apart and face as individual political units all the perils stronger powers would gladly heap upon us?

Is not unity of nation and the commitment from each of us to work to our utmost to solve our differences the better way? Should we not join with those who want to work to make our life, our country, and our world a better place to live? Is this not high enough purpose for all? Do we have to about lose what we have before we can value it?

AND, are we strengthening those with personal agendas who would destroy our nation by giving UNDUE audience to their rantings?

Original Post by santonacci:

Exactly how binding and enforceable is a "resolution"?  Is it the same as the actual passage of a state law?

And I thought Texas vs. White deemed unilateral secession illegal.

it has passed the senate, attached to another bill that is expected to pass the house and be signed by the governor

if passed by the house and signed, it would be binding in the sense that the georgia legislature could, at the time of their choosing, say that the resolution has been triggered and

all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.

They would then behave as an independent nation.

From what I've read about it, the main reason the authors put this forward is that if the assault weapons ban is reinstated, they say that will violate the 2nd amendment and trigger this resolution, dissolving the constitution and the federal government and necessitating a new constitutional convention among any interested parties.

That's what they say.

Original Post by cteene:

My thoughts are that we can't have a NATIONAL discussion about ANYTHING without BLAME.......It seems to me that any number of people, whether of a nation, a state, a family, even as few as just two persons, in contact with each other long enough, will soon find areas of disagreement, and , when faced with the real threat of losing something highly valued or not, almost always resort to BLAME.

In times of great national peril, as in during World War II, we, as Americans saw clearly beyond smaller, often petty differences and worked together for our nation's good. Are our present problems so big now that we can't solve them? Would we as citizens of numerous little independent states suddenly find ourselves living with no one who disagreed with us? Do we really want to chop our country apart and face as individual political units all the perils stronger powers would gladly heap upon us?

Is not unity of nation and the commitment from each of us to work to our utmost to solve our differences the better way? Should we not join with those who want to work to make our life, our country, and our world a better place to live? Is this not high enough purpose for all? Do we have to about lose what we have before we can value it?

AND, are we strengthening those with personal agendas who would destroy our nation by giving UNDUE audience to their rantings?

I guess these are questions that need to be asked of those who will not relent on whatever position is in question.

On the abortion issue, will pro-life people agree that pro-choice people have a legitimate position that deserves a seat at the table so that some kind of compromise that satisfies everyone can be reached?   If the two groups have goals that are definitionally at odds with the other group, and if both groups are committed to pursuing their agenda until their goal is fulfilled, then we're just in for an eternity of this bickering and fighting.

Is eternal bickering and fighting over unresolvable differences the best solution for all concerned?

 

Wow, that many states !!! I'd like to see the list. I know Texas is one. The original plan was the states govern themselves and the federal gov was only to protect the states.

Wow, have we wondered far of the path of the intentions of our founding fathers.