Where do you stand on State succession?

[bripat9643]

We conflate nothing. We aren't suffering from the leftwing delusion that socialism is a euphemism meaning "earthly paradise."

Socialism is the most perfect form of government that will never work due to humanity's imperfections.

It wouldn't work even if humans were perfect.

 

[bripat9643]

Work to make it work. Don't just cut off your nose to spite the assholes who are ruining things for everyone.

The results will not be what you now imagine.

Rather than relief you'll end up causing much, much pain.

Not worth it in the long run, until several generations are dead and gone.

Don't use permanent solutions to solve temporary frustrations.

This country isn't salvageable. All the incentives work in the wrong direction. Congress will never be reformed by profession politicians. The U.S.A is swirling down the toilet bowl.

If you think the people of the Roman Empire didn't know they were headed for oblivion, you're mistaken. They simply couldn't do anything about it. That's why the secession movement is gaining steam here. Plenty of Americans understand the same exact process is going on here.

Here's a plan for restoring the Republic.

Now tell me why you think it can't work.

A Summary of ‘The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic’

by Mark R. Levin

Posted on September 24, 2013

‘The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic’ by Mark R. Levin (Threshold Editions; August 13, 2013)

Table of Contents:

i. Introduction/Synopsis

PART I: WHY THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY

1. The Birth of Confederation and the Framing of the American Constitution

a. Limits on the Power of the Federal Government & Federalism
b. The System of Checks-and-Balances: The Branches of Government
2. The Rise of the Federal Government: The Erosion of Federalism and the Breakdown of the Limits on the Central Government

3. The Effect of Big Government: Higher Taxes, More Debt and Less Freedom

4. What Can Be Done?

PART II: THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS

5. Amendment 1: An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress

6. Amendment 2: An Amendment to Restore the Senate

7. Amendment 3: An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override

8. Amendment 4: An Amendment to Limit Federal Spending

9. Amendment 5: An Amendment to Limit Taxation

10. Amendment 6: An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy

11. Amendment 7: An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise

12. Amendment 8: An Amendment to Protect Private Property

13. Amendment 9: An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Check Congress

14. Amendment 10: An Amendment to Protect the Vote

PART III: HOW TO ENACT THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS AND CONCLUSION

15. Amending the Constitution: The Two Ways

16. Amendment 11: An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution

17. Conclusion

i. Introduction/Synopsis

When the early states came together to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederacy, they did so with a great deal of hope, but also a great deal of trepidation. The hope was that a federal government might be formed that could handle the few issues that were common to all the states but which could not be dealt with by the states individually. The fears, on the other hand, were that this government might come to gain an enormous amount of power; that this power might come to be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole might end up overreaching its purview and meddling in affairs that ought rightly to be left to the states and the various local governments (if not individuals themselves).

Thus the constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be split between 3 separate branches—each acting as a check-and-balance on the power of the others. And the power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas—all other areas being left expressly to the power of the states and local governments (and individuals).

Over the past century, though, this original arrangement has largely been undone. Indeed, after numerous constitutional amendments—and loose interpretations of the constitution itself—each of the branches of the federal government has, by turns, usurped (or been left with) more power than it was ever meant to have, and the federal government as a whole routinely involves itself in matters far from federal in nature—to the extent that it now insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of life, political, economic, and social.

For author and commentator Mark R. Levin it’s time we reversed this situation. For while those who made for the changes may have thought they were strengthening the nation, the fact is that the changes have contravened the very wise principles upon which the nation was built, and the practical results have been nothing but negative. Specifically, the changes have left the nation with nothing but ever-increasing taxes, ever-mounting debt, and ever-more soft tyranny for some with ever-reduced freedom for everyone else.

And the reform we need, according to the author, runs more than legislation-deep. It is reform that needs to happen at the very source: it is the constitution itself that must be reformed. For only radical constitutional reform can undo the radical and misguided reform that has come before.

Specifically, Levin proposes 11 constitutional amendments. They include: 1) term limits for members of Congress; 2) the election of Senators to be returned to state legislatures; 3) term limits for Supreme Court Justices (and the opportunity for federal and state legislatures to override Supreme Court decisions with a supermajority); 4) limits on federal spending (with an eye to curbing federal debt); 5) limits on taxation; 6) limits on how much power Congress can delegate to the federal bureaucracy; 7) limiting the federal government from interfering with economic activity that does not pertain to interstate or international trade; 8) requiring the government to compensate property owners for the devaluation of property caused by regulations; 9) allowing the states to amend the constitution directly (without having to go through Congress); 10) granting states the right to overturn the laws and regulations of Congress with a supermajority; 11) requiring voters to produce photo identification at election booths.

Of course, the federal government cannot be expected to make the proposed changes itself (since many of the amendments entail limiting this government’s power). Thankfully, though, it needn’t; for as the author points out, provisions exist under Article V of the constitution that allow the document to be amended not just at the instigation of Congress, but at the instigation of a state-led convention—which is precisely what Levin is pushing for here.

What follows is a full executive summary of The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic by Mark R. Levin.

#43. A Summary of ?The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic? by Mark R. Levin | New Books in Brief

The government isn't following the Constitution now. So what makes you think it will obey these new amendments?

 

[Mojo2]

socialism comes in dozens of flavors. Some of them quite benign.

marxism is not. marxists should be shot on sight. There should be a bounty on them. An open season. Maybe even a contest to see who can bag the most in a single day.

Our dimocrap scumbag pals seem to think (because they're REALLY, REALLY STUPID), that marxism and socialism are one and the same. Mostly because all they know about socialism is marxism.

But, like I said..... They're really stupid.

Be prepared to be refuted by britpat! Or are you saying britpat is really REALLY stupid? My money is on the latter.

Here, read this. It's sort of a primer for idiots, like you, with a 3rd grade education.

Be advised, the article uses big words.......

On further thought, get your mommy to read it to you; she should be home from work any minute....

Types of socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you think you're ready for the Big Leagues (in ten or twenty years) try this one:

But I doubt you'll ever be ready for that one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6lSR62wmSo]The Road to Serfdom in Cartoons -Based on book by F.A. Hayek - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mojo2]

This country isn't salvageable. All the incentives work in the wrong direction. Congress will never be reformed by profession politicians. The U.S.A is swirling down the toilet bowl.

If you think the people of the Roman Empire didn't know they were headed for oblivion, you're mistaken. They simply couldn't do anything about it. That's why the secession movement is gaining steam here. Plenty of Americans understand the same exact process is going on here.

Here's a plan for restoring the Republic.

Now tell me why you think it can't work.

i. Introduction/Synopsis

When the early states came together to discuss the possibility of establishing a confederacy, they did so with a great deal of hope, but also a great deal of trepidation. The hope was that a federal government might be formed that could handle the few issues that were common to all the states but which could not be dealt with by the states individually. The fears, on the other hand, were that this government might come to gain an enormous amount of power; that this power might come to be concentrated in the hands of very few; and that the federal government as a whole might end up overreaching its purview and meddling in affairs that ought rightly to be left to the states and the various local governments (if not individuals themselves).

Thus the constitution was framed in such a way that the power of the federal government would be split between 3 separate branches—each acting as a check-and-balance on the power of the others. And the power of the federal government as a whole was limited to certain specific areas—all other areas being left expressly to the power of the states and local governments (and individuals).

Over the past century, though, this original arrangement has largely been undone. Indeed, after numerous constitutional amendments—and loose interpretations of the constitution itself—each of the branches of the federal government has, by turns, usurped (or been left with) more power than it was ever meant to have, and the federal government as a whole routinely involves itself in matters far from federal in nature—to the extent that it now insinuates itself into virtually every aspect of life, political, economic, and social.

For author and commentator Mark R. Levin it’s time we reversed this situation. For while those who made for the changes may have thought they were strengthening the nation, the fact is that the changes have contravened the very wise principles upon which the nation was built, and the practical results have been nothing but negative. Specifically, the changes have left the nation with nothing but ever-increasing taxes, ever-mounting debt, and ever-more soft tyranny for some with ever-reduced freedom for everyone else.

And the reform we need, according to the author, runs more than legislation-deep. It is reform that needs to happen at the very source: it is the constitution itself that must be reformed. For only radical constitutional reform can undo the radical and misguided reform that has come before.

Specifically, Levin proposes 11 constitutional amendments. They include: 1) term limits for members of Congress; 2) the election of Senators to be returned to state legislatures; 3) term limits for Supreme Court Justices (and the opportunity for federal and state legislatures to override Supreme Court decisions with a supermajority); 4) limits on federal spending (with an eye to curbing federal debt); 5) limits on taxation; 6) limits on how much power Congress can delegate to the federal bureaucracy; 7) limiting the federal government from interfering with economic activity that does not pertain to interstate or international trade; 8) requiring the government to compensate property owners for the devaluation of property caused by regulations; 9) allowing the states to amend the constitution directly (without having to go through Congress); 10) granting states the right to overturn the laws and regulations of Congress with a supermajority; 11) requiring voters to produce photo identification at election booths.

Of course, the federal government cannot be expected to make the proposed changes itself (since many of the amendments entail limiting this government’s power). Thankfully, though, it needn’t; for as the author points out, provisions exist under Article V of the constitution that allow the document to be amended not just at the instigation of Congress, but at the instigation of a state-led convention—which is precisely what Levin is pushing for here.

What follows is a full executive summary of The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic by Mark R. Levin.

#43. A Summary of ?The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic? by Mark R. Levin | New Books in Brief

The government isn't following the Constitution now. So what makes you think it will obey these new amendments?

Did you not read the part that answers your question?

Here. Maybe this will be better.

This concern is addressed in the video.

"...an oppressive federal government and an oppressive Congress is not going reign itself in with Constitutional amendments..."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2JFFBYvDFQ]The Liberty Amendments: Mark Levin on Hannity - YouTube[/ame]


And here is Levin being interviewed elsewhere at another time.

HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin Introduces His New Book "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic"

[...]

And here's the beauty of the process: Congress' role in the state application process is minimal and ministerial. And it couldn't be otherwise, because the Framers and Ratifiers adopted the state convention process for the purpose of establishing an alternative to the Congressionally-initiated amendment process. That was the point.

Now you can see why the ruling class and their little mouthpieces are going to hate me: because this removes power from them.

It gives power to the state delegates and state senators, who you will have an effect on one day. And this is what my new book is about: The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.

Doug Ross @ Journal: HERE IS THE TRANSCRIPT: Mark Levin Introduces His New Book "The Liberty Amendments: Restoring The American Republic"

 

[kaz]

Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

There's that public school education rearing its ugly head again.

The Civil War was fought over state's rights. Slavery was merely an exercise of those rights.

No shit Dick Tracy. Note I said "a big reason" and not the only reason or even the main reason. But if you don't think slavery was a big reason, you're a moron. Are you familiar with the Missouri Compromise? But slavery was the pertinent reason to my point. People like you who have to boil down everything to one and only one cause miss a whole lot of the world going past you.

The reality is that you cannot separate in the pre-civil war era south economics, state rights and slavery. They were intertwined.

 

[SwimExpert]

You're free to stick your head where the sun don't shine.

And you're still free to go live in any country that will have you. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

I am being forced to do a lot of other things, however. Like I said, you're free to stick your head where the sun don't shine. No one is forcing you to keep it exposed.

There has never been a society in the history of humanity that has not imposed obligations and requirements of some kind upon its members. Get over it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where do you stand on State secession?


States check in, but they don't check out.

So rather than a Union, you want a prison camp? Well, that IS the goal of your shameful party.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Without the ability to leave, you do not have a union in the first place. So, following the war of Northern Aggression, what started as a union is now a conscription to federal slavery of the states.

There is no union without the ability to secede peacefully. And we learned what the federal government thinks of peaceful secession already. They will not allow it. Tyrants gonna tyrant.

What was peaceful about the south attacking federal installations? Fort Sumter didn't attack anyone they were attacked. The crazy thing is if the southern democrats would have remained peaceful there would have been no war and the whole thing could have been negotiated. As it was they left the union and became an enemy which was taken over by the north and in the long run treated very well.

The south sent commissioners to negotiate the settlement of federal installations in seceding states. They were turned away. Carolina gave the federal installations plenty of time to peacefully leave. They refused. Being the north was already forming the climate for a battle ground, what difference would it have made. The north wanted war to keep the southern states from leaving. Period.
It;'s bullshti to say tha the federal government was going to allow states to secede. They were not. Lincoln's entire war effort was built on the mentality that southern states could not leave. That they were not independent from federal control. And that mentality persisted to the bitter end. To say otherwise is to rewrite history and be incorrect.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can't read it but suspect its the same schlock about the young paying for the sick and hurt.

Which, coincidentally, the way all health care insurance has always paid their bills.

Who did you think paid for it?

The problem with Ovomits scheme is that it is fascist. It places pseudo-private companies in charge of a mandatory government program. Privitizing profit while making liability a public affair. Naturally, the donors to Ovomit and the other shameful democrats are placed in positions to rape the system and amass huge wealth. Ovomitcare is more of a criminal conspiracy than a health care system - it's a license to steal.

Standard Disclaimer: Do the forum Communists think that "Ovomit" is as clever as "Ray-Gun?"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Where do you stand on State secession?


States check in, but they don't check out.

So rather than a Union, you want a prison camp? Well, that IS the goal of your shameful party.

Exactly. Without the ability to leave you do not have a union. What you have is slavery. How anyone could possibly advocate for force and violence against a state that wanted to peacefully leave federal control is ironically hypocritical. Even Lincoln was for secession until he found himself facing seceding states. Well, then it was entirely different! Because Statists are, and always will be, complete hypocrites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

There's that public school education rearing its ugly head again.

The Civil War was fought over state's rights. Slavery was merely an exercise of those rights.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right" Vice President, CSA, "Cornerstone Speech"

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede?

C_Clayton is a Saul Goodman type lawyer. He went to law school in the Philippines or some other offshore venue and friends of a Gus Fring type made sure clerical malfeasance ended up with him being issued a Bar card....

C_Clayton, or "Saul," has never actually read the Constitution, so the contents are a complete mystery to him...

I'm just sayin...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uncensored and bripat, mail your objections to SCOTUS.

Right now!

They will be enthralled with your insight!!

 

[SwimExpert]

Exactly. Without the ability to leave you do not have a union.

The states entered into a perpetual union, of their own accord. It's no different than you entering into a contract to lease a piece of real estate for the next 150 years. You entered on your own accord, and therefore your own free will.

Also, every state has the ability to leave the union. They simply need to acquire the consent of the several states. If that doesn't work, they can execute a revolution.

What you have is slavery.

That's an amazingly stupid thing to say.

How anyone could possibly advocate for force and violence against a state that wanted to peacefully leave federal control is ironically hypocritical.

People also say the same thing about Americans who oppose illegal immigrants or strict immigration policies. And I say to you now what I say to them. Stop living hundreds of years in the past. This is the 21st century. It is pointless to dictate modern day policy based on century's old political points.

 

[SwimExpert]

Where does the Constitution say a state can't secede?

You argument seems to assume that the constitution created the Union that is called the United States. You are mistaken. The Union was created by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The constitution did not create a new Union. It creates a more perfect Union, as it declares in the preamble.

 

[kaz]

Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

There's that public school education rearing its ugly head again.

The Civil War was fought over state's rights. Slavery was merely an exercise of those rights.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right" Vice President, CSA, "Cornerstone Speech"

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

Slavery was really an effect, not a cause of the civil war. While as I pointed out to House boiling the war down to one factor is ridiculous, the big three are state rights, economics and slavery and you cannot separate those, they are intertwined. I said for that reason that slavery was a "big" reason, it was. So was State rights, as House said.

Again, you cannot separate them, but if you want to order them, you really need to go to disease, symptom and solution. You could argue the proximate cause of the war was slavery. However, that was a symptom, the South did not want slavery for slavery sake, they needed it. Why? The North was industrializing, the South was agricultural. The North for that reason was drawing population far faster to fill the factories. Not needing slaves, they found it reprehensible. So the reason the south wanted slavery was economics, that was the cause, slavery was the symptom and therefore economics and not slavery drove the war.

Clearly State Rights tied into that as well, but that was not the cause either. As the North and South changed economically and culturally because the North was drawing population and immigrants faster and the North became more powerful, the South resisted being forced to follow the path and the direction of the North. Hence, the solution to that was "State Rights." Again, they did not want State Rights for it's own sake, they wanted State rights to protect their economy. They needed slaves to support their economy. Therefore, the primary reason for the war was clearly economics. State Rights and Slavery are inseparable from that. But they were not the goals in themselves.

 

[Dutch]

2017-If a Republican gets elected POTUS.

Dem on the Board-"New York should just secede." The Republicans are ruining the country.

Bripat and Kaz-"If you don't like, get out. Love it or leave it man."

 

[editec]

That argument has been shot down 1000 times.



Only so long as it remains part of the union.

Since you're an anarchist, you must also concede that the individual states have no authortiy, in principle (i.e. your principles), to force their subsets,

whether it be counties, cities, townships, or individuals for that matter, to agree to follow a state out of the Union.

I agree 100%. Not only should states be able to secede, but so should counties, cities, towns and even individuals.

Finally an anarchist who admits it.

A REAL(as opposed to the fakes who call themselves) anarchist.

My hat's off to ya, Bripat.

While I am not remotely an anarchist, I can definitely understand how one might find the path of NO government whatever, appealing.

 

[BlindBoo]

There's that public school education rearing its ugly head again.

The Civil War was fought over state's rights. Slavery was merely an exercise of those rights.

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right" Vice President, CSA, "Cornerstone Speech"

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

Slavery was really an effect, not a cause of the civil war. While as I pointed out to House boiling the war down to one factor is ridiculous, the big three are state rights, economics and slavery and you cannot separate those, they are intertwined. I said for that reason that slavery was a "big" reason, it was. So was State rights, as House said.

Again, you cannot separate them, but if you want to order them, you really need to go to disease, symptom and solution. You could argue the proximate cause of the war was slavery. However, that was a symptom, the South did not want slavery for slavery sake, they needed it. Why? The North was industrializing, the South was agricultural. The North for that reason was drawing population far faster to fill the factories. Not needing slaves, they found it reprehensible. So the reason the south wanted slavery was economics, that was the cause, slavery was the symptom and therefore economics and not slavery drove the war.

Clearly State Rights tied into that as well, but that was not the cause either. As the North and South changed economically and culturally because the North was drawing population and immigrants faster and the North became more powerful, the South resisted being forced to follow the path and the direction of the North. Hence, the solution to that was "State Rights." Again, they did not want State Rights for it's own sake, they wanted State rights to protect their economy. They needed slaves to support their economy. Therefore, the primary reason for the war was clearly economics. State Rights and Slavery are inseparable from that. But they were not the goals in themselves.

Secession of the Southern States started the war. They seceded to preserve Slavery.

The rich needed to preserve Slavery because they had so much money tied up in Slaves.

 

[Ellasophia]

Let 'em secede. The blue states' tax burden would shrink dramatically. The red states will be at war with one another within months.