Confederacy... will it return?

[Navy1960]

Frequently these states are at odds with Federal Govt. and sometimes the Fed will force the states to conform by the power of the purse. Which they often do. It's my humble opinion that states that are affirming their rights are sending a message to Washington that they are best at governing within their own borders better than the Federal Govt. is which I completely agree with. Here's a little example, who here besides those living in Calif. and I'm sure there are a lot of people who Calif. that feel this way too would want half of the policies and laws that have led to the massive budget deficit in that state. Look at the state I live in that our new head of homeland security left us, massive budget shortfalls, last in education, housing crisis, and one of the worst immigration problems in the country. So yes, it makes sense that one state would not want to conform to so called norm that is imposed from Washington and let them govern themselves and this does not mean a new confederacy.

 

[MaggieMae]

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, retains original jurisdiction on cases in which a state is 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".

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? Samuel Chase
Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the only thing that keeps Texas from exercising it's right to break away from the United States. Even this, is a flawed opinion as it is based on the Artiles of Confederation and not the Constitution. If this case had been decided on the laws of the United States and not some crazy after thought Texas and any other State could exercise its right under the constitution to succeed.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Texas secedes. I'd just like to see some of my family members living and working in the Houston area get out beforehand, though. My brother has lived in Texas most of his adult life (he's now 62), and when the subject of secession arises, he just rolls his eyes and shakes his head. He recently said to me: "Can you search the Internet and see if I'd need to update my passport to visit my son in New Orleans?"

That is as ignorant as someone proposing that their state secede from the union.

Why do you think he said it? Why do you think I posted it? The whole secession idea is lunacy, that's why.

 

[MaggieMae]

Along with many other theories which may occur within the next ten years is the fear that the Confederate States of America will be reborn.

Slavery won't return and the Confederacy isn't likely to declare war on the USA, but what would come of such a thing?

Recent articles have reported that many states, in particular Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Tennesse, Georgia, Arkansas and Florida have all passed legislature that reaffirms their Constitutional 10th Amendment Rights. Here is the 10th Amendment:

"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."

This mainly was invoked to battle the President on his absurd declaration that the States must spend the stimulus money the way he has decided they will spend it. The fact is, the Constitution does not give the Federal government the right or power to dictate how the States will spend any money they receive.

So, while some will say that the States are just "talking smack", the fact remains that we are a union only because we choose, every second of every day, to stay a union. If any of the states in our union decide that they will not spend the money the way the Federal government demands, they will be in violation of a federal offense (though I can't say which one... but one will be invented for just such a thing). Federal troops will be sent into the State to secure it's capital. Once that happens, the war will begin. It probably won't be our elected officials, since these weakling just want to keep their jobs; it will be the people who have more to lose than their politicians. This will be a sad day for America.

What would happen if the dissenting states separated from the Union and formed a Confederacy? What would happen if Chuck Norris actually did run for President of the Confederate States of America?

If you'd be interested in talking in more detail with other interested persons on this topic, please email me at the above address. Also, please note: DO NOT THREATEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! IT'S A QUICK TRIP TO JAIL FOR EVEN TYPING IT! Remember, we're assuming a non-violent split where everyone agrees it's in the best interest of all. Here's some comments I've read so far:

"If Texas splits, Californa's new @#$%^ will be the illegal Texans!"

"No way Texas will keep NAFTA. This would be a chance to start over and run things the right way."



So, if you have a comment, even if it's a mean one to me, go ahead and send it to here. Remember - I asked for this, so say what you need to. I need honest opinions.

Frankly, I'm so sick of the idiotic politicking of raging against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with one "side" or the other over the most silly, mundane things, I think the line does needs to be drawn again. Let the Civil War Redux begin and see who wins this time--the Southern Rebels who can only see black and white (no pun here) or the Northern Intellectuals who recognize that there's gray in between. (Regional characterizations are also generalized.)

Your condescending attitude towards the population of the southern states is incredibly ignorant and yet, all too typical. The idea that a person living in a Northern state is more intellectual than one in the southern states is such bullshit. I have lived across the United States, from Louisiana to Minnesota to California, Colorado and now Texas........ I have found very little difference among those populations. I lived in the deep, deep south....... Lafayette, Louisiana, about 20 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. In the 15 years I lived there, I saw nothing having to do with the KKK. I moved to Denver, Colorado and was treated to those clowns in their white robes demonstrating twice a year on the capital steps..... Hitler's birthday and MLK day. I spent some time in Chicago and witnessed a white cop standing over a black man lying face down in a pool of blood, he was eating a sub sandwich, he certainly didn't seem all that "intellectual".

There are idiots everywhere. There are exceptionally intelligent people everywhere also, it is people that live in the South that run and work for NASA, they have put men on the moon and helped build an international space station, not exactly red neck dumbasses. Houston has the most impressive medical centers anywhere. Discovering oil 130 miles offshore, drilling for it and refining it into gasoline isn't rocket science but it takes almost as much effort to bring it to the marketplace.

I knew I would be accused of that, which is why I added a disclaimer^^.

My own brother is the smartest guy I know and he has lived in Houston for 30 years and graduated from Ole Miss although he was born a yankee and most of his relatives live in New England. Obviously I do not exclude everyone living in the South from the intellegentsia.

 

[sitarro]

Tiger Woods and many of the international players were heckled by the drunk "intellectuals" at the U.S. Open being played on Long Island. He has never had to take that shit in Georgia at the Masters. He receives standing ovations from the sea of white fans at Augusta National, even the first time he won when he pummeled the course and all of the white guys playing on it. You see racism and extraordinarily bad behavior everywhere and yet people in the Northeastern section of the United States love to blame the "south" for idiot behavior and racism......... that's neither intellectual or even funny, it's bullshit.

Katrina is a great example of the hype from assholes that rush down from the North to report on any disaster that comes up, any chance to keep the old racial stereotypes going.

 

[JBeukema]

The states passing legislation affirming their sovereignty under the 10th amendment is no where near secession. In fact, it's the opposite. It's the states affirming their rights under the existing Constitution of the United States. The Confederacy is not coming back.

autonomy.. limited autonomy... not sovereignty...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The states passing legislation affirming their sovereignty under the 10th amendment is no where near secession. In fact, it's the opposite. It's the states affirming their rights under the existing Constitution of the United States. The Confederacy is not coming back.

autonomy.. limited autonomy... not sovereignty...

The states are sovereign. They ceded certain definite powers to the federal government in the Constitution, yet retained all others.

 

[JBeukema]

The states passing legislation affirming their sovereignty under the 10th amendment is no where near secession. In fact, it's the opposite. It's the states affirming their rights under the existing Constitution of the United States. The Confederacy is not coming back.

autonomy.. limited autonomy... not sovereignty...

The states are sovereign. They ceded certain definite powers to the federal government in the Constitution, yet retained all others.

They are not sovereign States (nations), but semi-autonomous regions (member states) of a sovereign nation (the USA)

Hell, sovereign nations are allowed to leave unions

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

autonomy.. limited autonomy... not sovereignty...

The states are sovereign. They ceded certain definite powers to the federal government in the Constitution, yet retained all others.

They are not sovereign States (nations), but semi-autonomous regions (member states) of a sovereign nation (the USA)

Hell, sovereign nations are allowed to leave unions

The United States is a union of sovereign states.

Where in the Constitution are they forbidden from leaving? Also, New York, Rhode Island (I believe), and Virginia all specifically reserved their right to leave the Union when they ratified the Constitution.

 

[JBeukema]

The states are sovereign. They ceded certain definite powers to the federal government in the Constitution, yet retained all others.

They are not sovereign States (nations), but semi-autonomous regions (member states) of a sovereign nation (the USA)

Hell, sovereign nations are allowed to leave unions

The United States is a union of sovereign states.

The USA may have been envisioned as such, but in reality is is a singular sovereign State with number of semi-autonomous administrative districts

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They are not sovereign States (nations), but semi-autonomous regions (member states) of a sovereign nation (the USA)

Hell, sovereign nations are allowed to leave unions

The United States is a union of sovereign states.

The USA may have been envisioned as such, but in reality is is a singular sovereign State with member of semi-autonomous administrative districts

Yes, the states have allowed the federal government to usurp their powers and delegate them to subordinate status.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, the states have allowed the federal government to usurp their powers and delegate them to subordinate status.

Then we are in agreement

 

[foggedinn]

What constitutes a viable nation? Is Belize a viable nation? Is Luxembourg a viable nation. How about Laos?

If the United states separates into half a dozen independent nations, each in fact would be viable, just not superpower capable. I don't know that that would be a bad thing. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I really don't see the south rising again in the sense of a military revolt. However, I do believe that God has removed His favor from America. As such, He is using our own idols to destroy us. We worship money and military might. We are currently caught in a God made snare in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two birds with one stone. Both our national treasure and our military might is being wasted. And there is no way out.

I expect the nation to just disintegrate. My greatest hope is that we denuclearize before it happens, or we will surely be using them on ourselves.

 

[jillian]

Yes, the states have allowed the federal government to usurp their powers and delegate them to subordinate status.

ah...once again professing to be a constitutional expert. cute....

the states ARE subordinate to the Federal government. That is why the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

I'm not qute sure why this is so difficult for you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, the states have allowed the federal government to usurp their powers and delegate them to subordinate status.

ah...once again professing to be a constitutional expert. cute....

the states ARE subordinate to the Federal government. That is why the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

I'm not qute sure why this is so difficult for you.

I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but it's pretty clear you have one.

At any rate, the states are not subordinates to the federal government. They are equal players in the Constitutional compact. The federal government has its jurisdiction, and the states have theirs.

 

[jan]

Federal law supercedes state law. Just ask those in California who had gotten a prescription for marijuana, yet the Feds were raiding them anyway. The Federal law took precedence, however they have since gotten it all straightened out under the Obama administration.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Federal law supercedes state law. Just ask those in California who had gotten a prescription for marijuana, yet the Feds were raiding them anyway. The Federal law took precedence, however they have since gotten it all straightened out under the Obama administration.

Federal law is only supposed to supercede state law when it is in regards to something the federal government has constitutional authority over. Marijuana is not one of those things.

 

[jan]

Federal law supercedes state law. Just ask those in California who had gotten a prescription for marijuana, yet the Feds were raiding them anyway. The Federal law took precedence, however they have since gotten it all straightened out under the Obama administration.

Federal law is only supposed to supercede state law when it is in regards to something the federal government has constitutional authority over. Marijuana is not one of those things.

The feds sure seemed to think they had control!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Federal law supercedes state law. Just ask those in California who had gotten a prescription for marijuana, yet the Feds were raiding them anyway. The Federal law took precedence, however they have since gotten it all straightened out under the Obama administration.

Federal law is only supposed to supercede state law when it is in regards to something the federal government has constitutional authority over. Marijuana is not one of those things.

The feds sure seemed to think they had control!

Well that's because the feds have no respect for the Constitution.

 

[jan]

Well that's because the feds have no respect for the Constitution.

Interesting comment! Although I disagree with you. Some violations were definitely made under the Bush administration though.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well that's because the feds have no respect for the Constitution.

Interesting comment! Although I disagree with you. Some violations were definitely made under the Bush administration though.

And now with the Obama administration.