Understood. Note that I'm not saying that it trumps those concepts, merely that it impacts their application.Suffice to say, I disagree completely and utterly with your viewpoint. I reject that the willing Union can never be unjoined, reject that the free will of the people can never freely choose to leave, including the lands they own and govern, the contract their forbearers entered, and reject the idea that the Constitution somehow trumps the greater concepts of human self-determination and liberty that allows peopel to freely choose their Government.
Understood - I'm just not sure what historical facts support that view. I'd be interested in anything you can provide (I know you're a history buff, so that's not a dig - I'm assuming you have something in mind, which would be interesting reading for me).I also reject the idea that the Constitution was designed to be an eternal document holding the States in against their will in the future, as many a founding fathers writing would support. It is my view they fully expected it not to last forever, or all the States to stay within it forever.
Because States operate as individual laboratories and engines of competition, with local governments more responsive to local concerns than the federal government ever could be. And because the constitutional limits of federal power don't define the limits wisdom might place on it.Under your system, I continue to wonder why, other than "original intent" and a phantasm of State Sovreignty we bother with having States at all, or State Governments. Clearly teh Federal, in your view, reigns utterly supreme, so why bother if in truth, the State, and the people within, are truly powerless vs. the Federal Govt. outside their Constitutionally mandated few reps as their only real recourse. /shrug.
Given many of our recent discussions, I'm not sure what the limits of Federal power are any more, if any. From my perspective, that ship sailed a long time ago. I see our Federal with effective unlimited power now, over both State and Individual. There is literally no issue I couldn't see the Fed. expressing control over today, with things like the "happiness" portion or the commerce clause or some other interpritation of open-ended wording being used to justify the control. Will be very interesting if the mandate is struck down, but I just don't see it.Because States operate as individual laboratories and engines of competition, with local governments more responsive to local concerns than the federal government ever could be. And because the constitutional limits of federal power don't define the limits wisdom might place on it.
Last edited by Warfish; 06-25-2012 at 05:14 PM.
Well, lets take the two most recent additions as examples. Why did Hawaii and Alaska join the union? Why did DC let them? What would need to happen to reverse this?
Does a state that leaves the union have to take 1/50th of the debt with them?
Warfish, are you aware of the seasteading movement? What's your take on it?
If sound-minded people were seceding for sound-minded reasons, I wouldn't be totally against it.
I think about the state of affairs today and I don't see an easy way out of it. A buddy of mine posted on the facenetz about Engel or some other fellow from NY getting past the primary and how he (buddy) might as well start preparing for that idiot Obama getting reelected (his words not mine). I stopped and considered that I wouldn't really be too worried about it because I'm not sure I see another productive presidency/administration coming in my lifetime. With the way the Senate and Congress seem to be run, the President seems to becoming more and more of a puppet or sideshow than anything or anyone of any merit.
The bigger problem is that too many voters are either too stupid or too disenfranchised with the whole situation to be concerned enough to look for change. I would in fact consider myself to be of this population. I'll let you all decide which category I fit into. How many voting-aged people would rather watch TMZ, Real Housewives, Kardashians (I still don't understand what makes them famous) et al than to watch even their local news, let alone a national news program? Yet when MTV and all of the tweeps they follow tell them to go out and vote, they will hurry to do just that so they can tell you about their rights and how its wrong not to vote because Kim, Khloe, and the other one?? say you should. Me personally, well I can't watch the news because it seems wildly overpopulated with information about rank stupidity. I typically wind up yelling at the TV and feeling like a crazy person. I wind up asking myself how many steps am I from sitting in the corner of the C train reading aloud to myself from a crinkled sheet of paper in week or two of my own filth.
Given all of the above, I have thought at times that perhaps the only reasonable thing is to reclaim the project that like-minded men way back when started. Mind you I'm not talking about running around assassinating politicians or anything like that. Lord knows we could use bullets for far more valuable reasons. I also wont be trying to occupy anything or attacking riot police in my organic hemp poncho. I just think something significant and profound needs to occur to right the ship. Also I could not begin to suggest any of the means to go about that.
I'm saving my answer until a little after 10 AM today
meh - the American Revolution was "illegal". The people have a right to revolt when their leaders have failed them. Eventually, the US will become 2 separate countries, based on idealogy.
There will never be another revolution. The gov't/military is too powerful. What we need to do is vote for a Republican Congress this election. Let them repeal the bill. The people still have a voice in this. The solution is simple. Now we need to rally and come out and vote.
I also should point out that if Doggin IS right in his argument, then the U.S. Revolution was and is illegal (the Colonies had no right under British Law to leave). What that of course points out is that violent revolution > law when it coems to such things, and as much as we value democracy and the will or people and rule of law, the real power is in none of those things. It's in violence and the will to express it.
Instead of whining we (conservatives) should use this as a means to galvanize.
I think the Republicans should use this as a rallying cry. Put our votes where our mouths are.
It is being reported that Justice Roberts made it clear that this ruling does not in any way mean that this is a good law or smart law and that if the people are unhappy then they can elect new representation. Maybe this is the SC's way of pushing us back to conservatism. We have to earn our country back.
It's time to wave the white flag and accept defeat.
This was inevitable. Everything is cyclical - things are going to get far worse before they ever get better.
The best you can do now is take care of yourself, take care of your family and ignore the outside. Live your time here, enjoy it to its fullest, and die. But prepare your children and grandchildren. Educate them on history and don't allow them to be distorted by aggressive politics. Perhaps one day they will have more power to do things that you and I can not and will not be able to do.
We've lost. But there's no use in crying over spilled milk.
They love this ruling. They see it as a huge talking point for the Nov. Elections and their chance to regain power for themselves.
Now, we both know they won't/can't actually repeal Obamacare. But to a Republican, this ruling is awesome. The loss of freedom to the individual doesn't really, truly, concern them.
Only how this helps their election chances in Nov.
A pox on both their houses.