Article

2009-10-22 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-10-22 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 last great hope.

Posted by Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-10-22 00:31|| 2009-10-22 00:31|| Front Page Top

#2 About Damn Time.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-10-22 00:41|| 2009-10-22 00:41|| Front Page Top

#3 This could eventually (and a long, long way down the road) lead to a Constitutional Convention.

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-10-22 00:51|| 2009-10-22 00:51|| Front Page Top

#4 role of the federal government has been "blurred, bent and breached."

Yep. A whole house of cards. Constructed one misconstrued argument at a time.

Posted by gorb 2009-10-22 02:34|| 2009-10-22 02:34|| Front Page Top

#5 The latest argument, Hoyer's statements about the power to mandate the citizens of the United States to purchase, among other thing, health insurance under the guise of promoting the general welfare has me floored. It is time to fix this.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2009-10-22 03:12|| 2009-10-22 03:12|| Front Page Top

#6 Civil war II?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-10-22 03:56|| 2009-10-22 03:56|| Front Page Top

#7 Turning back the tide of federalism which has it's roots in the pre-Civil War period will be a daunting challenge. Over 600,000 lost their lives in the last attempt to pull away from Washington. Oh yes of course, it was all about ~~health care~~ slavery, nothing more. Let us hope and pray it does not come to armed conflict. Hat tip to Rep. Lynn.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-10-22 05:01|| 2009-10-22 05:01|| Front Page Top

#8 "Oh yes of course, it was all about slavery, nothing more"

It wasn't only about slavery where the North was concerned. If it had been only about that, then they'd have freed the slaves, taken the black population North (or chopped up pieces of the South to give them as land), and then allowed the white portion of the South to secede. Thus twin objectives would have been satisfied: no slavery allowed, and no violation of states' rights to secession. That might have been the optimal solution.

But it was all about maintaining slavery where the South was concerned: It seems highly coincidental otherwise that the desire and love for freedom from federal government only arose in slave-states.

And that's ofcourse why the Confederacy constitution forbade abolition of slavery in any of its states. So much for states' rights, so much for reducing the power of the federal government.

Posted by JY 2009-10-22 05:29|| 2009-10-22 05:29|| Front Page Top

#9 Please if you will, allow a minor correct. Slavery existed not only in secessionist states but in Maryland, Delaware, Nebraska, the District of Columbia, the Indian Territory of what is now Oklahoma, and New Jersey. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863 was a masterful propaganda tactic, but in truth, it proclaimed free only those slaves outside the control of the Federal government--that is, only those in areas still controlled by the Confederacy. Lincoln's aim was to reunify the nation. Abolition was the dog biting him in the ass which he skillfully tamed for his purposes. The scurge of slavery and it's legacy remain with us today.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-10-22 06:15|| 2009-10-22 06:15|| Front Page Top

#10 Another minor correct, Besoeker. Kentucky and Missouri were also slave states that were not part of the seccessionist Confederacy.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-10-22 07:00|| 2009-10-22 07:00|| Front Page Top

#11 Yes indeed! Well done Glenmore. History and intentions can be rewritten and argued, but one thing which is most certainly indisputable, the practice of slavery certainly was a gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-10-22 07:07|| 2009-10-22 07:07|| Front Page Top

#12 No matter what state this came from, at least it is coming. We'll see if any fruit is born from it.

Posted by DarthVader 2009-10-22 07:29|| 2009-10-22 07:29|| Front Page Top

#13 Civil war II?

Nope. Starting Civil Wars is South Carolina's job not Tenessee's.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 07:53|| 2009-10-22 07:53|| Front Page Top

#14 Besoeker.

It is a a shame that I know more about the US Constitution than you: Lincoln had no authority to abolish slavery in the States who had remained loyal.

Abou Lincoln not caring about slavery: let's remind that in the period between hos election and his oath he forbade republicabn legislators and his future ministers to make any concessions on slavery or promising a politic of exapnsion in South America or in Cuba (South wanted it in order to extend slavery).

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 08:20|| 2009-10-22 08:20|| Front Page Top

#15 If it had been only about that, then they'd have freed the slaves,

The 13th Amendment did upon the blood of those 'who gave the last full measure of devotion'. That amendment couldn't pass in 1859. It did in 1865.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Why do we harangue the Japanese about why they can't come to grips with the destruction and deprivation they created from 1936+ [or for from the Korean point of view 1905+] when even in our own society, people still need to ignore the clarity and conciseness and timing of the 13th Amendment.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-22 08:34|| 2009-10-22 08:34|| Front Page Top

#16 There was nothing in the Constitution that forbade secession. New York, Pennesylvania, and the New England states threatened to secede at times pryor to the Civil War but compromises were made. Why did Lincoln, when one of his advisors said they should let the South go, say "My God, man, who would pay our tarrifs"? The South was the Federal Government's piggy bank.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2009-10-22 08:55|| 2009-10-22 08:55|| Front Page Top

#17 "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
We now work until mid May to carry the debts and taxes of all levels of government each year. More than 40% of our earnings each year. In Europe at the heights of the Feudal period, serfs owed their leige lord only about 30% of their annual earnings, albeit mostly in work and produce rather than currency. We are wage serfs more that those of the Middle Ages. I submit that this does constitute "involuntary servitude" and although you might argue that we have convicted ourselves of the crime of indifference and inattention to our duties as citizens in letting this get so out of control, we still really need to fix this. Tennessee might have offered the answer. If we don't end this BS very soon, we lose our nation as we know it, or more ominously, violence is coming!

Posted by NoMoreBS">NoMoreBS 2009-10-22 09:15|| 2009-10-22 09:15|| Front Page Top

#18 Deacon Blues

Excuise me but Secession due to tariffs (there had been thirty years of continuous decreasing of these) was just Confederate propaganda in order to be recognized by European Powers since slavery sold poorly. Also you could take a look at the pre Civil war Southern press and see how littel space was given to tariffs compared to slavery. Or read the Confederate Costitution: it is enlightening

Now if Lincoln had cared so much about tariffs and so little about slavery he would have made major concessions about the later and in tghe interval between his election and Forth Sumter promised a policy of South-American conquests and slavery introduction in order to get back the Deep South. Instead he adamantly opposed this policy.

Also I remind you that

1) Deep South didn't even wait for Lincoln's oath before seceeding. In other words it wasn't about Lincoln's policies it was about Deep South sh..g on democracy.

2) That teh Constitution didn't allow the President or the Congress to ban slavery against teh will of the States and it wouldn't have been possible to amend it before 1896 when the numbe of states reached the magic number of 45.

3) That the high South (including the four Staes who later joined the CSA) decided against Secession.

4) That before Fort Sumter Lincoln's policy had been to wait for heads cooling down and Sourthern states willingly reintegrating the Union (BTW Right to Secession was firmly opposed by President Buchanan). That in fact it was the worst fear of fire-eaters and that teh attack on Fort Sumter was largely motivated by the hope it would create a pro-secessionist tsunami in the High South states.

5) That when it was heard about Fort Sumter there were massive secessionist demonstrations in Richmond, Nashville and other High South cities, that the United States flag was replaced by the Confederate flag and that conventions fpr secession were formed. All of this happenned before Lincoln's call for volunteers so saying that it was this who pushed High South to Secession looks to be a fallacy. At most it hastened their Secession by a couple days.

6) That when it was heard about Confederates firing on Union soldiers at Fort Sumter states who, like New-York had been playing with the idea of becoming independent became solidly pro-Union and Lincoln was strongly criticized for being too lenient on the Rebels

So the story of American Civil War is how the South thought elections were only valid when they gave the "correct" result, how it fired on Union soldiers and how it ended having his a..s handled. Also the South should praise God for giving it the United States as its opponent: Lee walked away and Jefferson Davis spent two years in jail. In any European or South-American country executions would have numbered by the thousands or the tens of thousands.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 09:47|| 2009-10-22 09:47|| Front Page Top

#19 It may be a good idea for me to move to the first state that scedes from Washington DC.

DC is not really the "union". It is a bastion of ignorant rich nannies and doo gooders that know not anything of this country.

Those people do not represent me. They do not represent you either. They represent idealistic and foolish bottom 10% of the nations uneducated.

Posted by newc">newc 2009-10-22 09:54|| 2009-10-22 09:54|| Front Page Top

#20 So the story of American Civil War is how the South thought elections were only valid when they gave the "correct" result, how it fired on Union soldiers and how it ended having his a..s handled. Also the South should praise God for giving it the United States as its opponent: Lee walked away and Jefferson Davis spent two years in jail. In any European or South-American country executions would have numbered by the thousands or the tens of thousands
We disagree on these points. The Supreme Court found that neither Jefferson Davis nor Robert E. Lee comitted any crime, including treason.

Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues 2009-10-22 09:57|| 2009-10-22 09:57|| Front Page Top

#21 At this point in time, I am more concerned about the Commerce Clause being used to regulate anything under the sun than I am about slavery.

Posted by SteveS 2009-10-22 10:12|| 2009-10-22 10:12|| Front Page Top

#22 My state government will fight tooth and nail against Tennessee on this. Sigh.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2009-10-22 10:20|| 2009-10-22 10:20|| Front Page Top

#23 We disagree on these points. The Supreme Court found that neither Jefferson Davis nor Robert E. Lee comitted any crime, including treason.

That is the point: I can guarantee you, assumming they weren't slaves, that even the cooks and the house cleaners at Confederation's Presidencial palace would have been found guilty of treason had they been judged by French courts.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 10:21|| 2009-10-22 10:21|| Front Page Top

#24 Makes me proud to be a Tennessean. Phil Bredesen is a Democrat but a fairly sane individual. Fiscally conservative. Has experience in something other than government. Successful in business. Smaller government govenor. I don't think he had too much choice but to sign the bill because the Republicans took over the Legislature last year after years and years of Democratic control. While the Democrats were in control they were awful. I think they have been in control since just after the Civil War.

Posted by JohnQC 2009-10-22 10:34|| 2009-10-22 10:34|| Front Page Top

#25 I would like to point out two things to the assembled. First of all, please do not try and integrate the idea of secession into what is, right now, the purpose of restoring a constitutional balance between the federal government and the individual States.

This imbalance began in earnest only with the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of US senators) Amendments to the constitution in 1913. The 16th allowed the federal government to directly control the people without the buffer of their State government; and the 17th stripped the individual States of their voice and power in the federal government.

During the first half of the 20th Century, anti-federalism was needed, because America's demographics were rapidly shifting, needing some degree of homogenization to insure justice in different States for our transient people. This was compounded by the horrific economic collapse of the Great Depression, and the inability of the marketplace to stabilize itself at the national level.

But in the second half of the 20th Century, though much was accomplished with powerful central government, such as the "Pax Americana", it was done with reckless spending and depletion of resources in an unsustainable manner.

Finally, the federal government has gone so out of bounds that it can no longer control itself, and seeks totalitarianism. The only constitutional check on federal power left is the individual States.

For their part, the States are approaching this situation much like the emergence of vigilantism, which begins as a peaceful movement, a petition that the government resume its proper role.

Since this has failed, not even garnering federal recognition, the next stage is for the States to group together to protest unlawful federal behavior. Likely this will fail as well, as the courts are part of the problem, not the solution.

After some pause, likely the federal government will finally notice, and attempt to bribe or punish States that are resisting. Then it will turn vicious, using non-governmental organizations to attack the States.

After this, there will be considerable momentum to call a constitutional convention, and no doubt, the federals will try to seize control of the convention. And this might cause something close to mutiny among federal officers (N.B.: "Oath Keepers"), who refuse to arrest or attack the constitutional convention.

Once the convention is seated, they will likely have to relieve elected and appointed officials in the government, federal police, intelligence services and military, as their first line of business, and direct US officers, both civilian and military, to strip them of those offices.

Of course this, all of it, will be ugly and messy, but necessary. The reordered federal government will be made over-weak, and once things are reestablished, there will be tremendous electoral upheaval.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-10-22 10:52|| 2009-10-22 10:52|| Front Page Top

#26 Secession != "sh..g on democracy"

In fact, I am starting to think that the only true democracy is the kind you get when you vote with your feet. Hence the need for federalism, and left's desire to abolish it completely.

Posted by Iblis 2009-10-22 10:55|| 2009-10-22 10:55|| Front Page Top

#27 Iblis

Secession per se is not sh..g on democracy. Seceding when a president is acting like he has received a blank check and is trying to trample your rights is one thing. Seceding before he has even taken his oath is an entirely different one.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 11:19|| 2009-10-22 11:19|| Front Page Top

#28 Taking one more minute on the slavery/tariff rabbit track:

The southern states didn't see why they should pay for a canal in another part of the country. They saw only their individual states, not the nation as a whole. An interesting speech by Daniel Webster addresses this matter. (If you don't have William Safire's collection of speeches, Lend Me Your Ears, get it. Now. Smartest forty bucks you'll ever spend).

Southern industries, such as they were, benefitted from the tariff. Nothing prevented the South from developing their own factories, railroads, and other industries for home consumption. Nothing, that is, except the notion of the Gentleman Farmer, that a real gentleman didn't soil his hands with mere commerce.

Posted by mom">mom 2009-10-22 11:24|| 2009-10-22 11:24|| Front Page Top

#29 --- A constitutional convention [con-con] can go where no one has ever gone before, and where very few even want to consider going, just to remind everybody. There is no reason to expect that a 21st century con-con would function any better than the US Congress now does. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, John Jay & the others who launched the constitution have been dead a very long time, and there are few if any like them around today. Also want to remind everyone that the USA has had 2 civil wars, not one. The first civil war was the process that established of the USA, along with the confiscation of personal property, imprisonment, judicial murder, and/or exile of colonials who refused to commit what was then established as treason, aka the Loyalists. this, all of it, will be ugly and messy, but necessary. The reordered federal government will be made over-weak, and once things are reestablished, there will be tremendous electoral upheaval I think you have the cart several miles ahead of the horse. A con-con is as likely to make the government worse than it now is. A re-ordering of the federal government under due process, IMHO, can only happen as a result of tremendous electoral upheaval. There are, of course, many ways to re-order the federal government outside of due process, and I am not referring to armed rebellion, just to mundane things like an collapse of the dollar and the world economy, associated with a forced repudiation of the national debt; nukes flying in the middle east and taking giant oil fields out of production for a few decades; epidemics, etc.
--- They represent idealistic and foolish bottom 10% of the nations uneducated. Our last, best hope is a massive campaign to educate enough of the US electorate to force an electoral upheaval. That alone will bring on a crisis since vested interests, incumbents & the judiciary will do everything they can to interfere with a ballot-box revolution.
--- Nothing in the Constitution forbade secession, but nothing permitted it either.
--- Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. This may be the case, but that is not the way Congress or the federal courts have been functioning for many decades now. In the 1930's FDR acted to void contracts agreeing to payments based on gold (IMO a violation of the Constitution) and the USSC upheld his action! The USSC also approved the imprisonment of US citizens without due process during WWII (internment of Japanese), and AFAICT this precedent still stands. The Black Hills were seized by the federal government in clear violation of treaties it was a party to, and the USSC did not mandate the return of that property, just the award of a piddling few dollars of grossly inadequate compensation which AFAICT the affected tribes have refused to accept. And on, and on.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-10-22 12:54|| 2009-10-22 12:54|| Front Page Top

#30 JFM

Either you have the right of secession or you don't. It makes no difference what reason you have to exercise that right.

Anguper Hupomosing9418

It does not trouble me that the Constitution does not contain an explicit right to succeed. It is a document which lists out enumerated powers, and those left unenumerated are expressly retained by the states and the people respectively.

Posted by Iblis 2009-10-22 13:42|| 2009-10-22 13:42|| Front Page Top

#31 Either you have the right of secession or you don't. It makes no difference what reason you have to exercise that right.

Without entering on the fine juridical reasonings for or against the secession (the Unionists had their aguments too) you ragument is a fallacy: you hacve a right to kill in some circumstances not just because you dislike the other guy's mustache.

Also what was undisputed by both sides was not the Right of Secession (who BTW isn't explictly allowed by teh Constitution) but the right of FRevelllion and that supposes some motiveations. Anyway even if we accept the right pf Secession their decision to exert it at this precise moment (ie even before Lincoln had taken his oath) says looooots about 1861 Southerners.

Also before Civil War, despite not being citizens slaves counted for 60% of their numbers fir detrmining number of Congressmen and Grand Electors. Plus thae Souk was over represented in Senate relative to population.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 14:09|| 2009-10-22 14:09|| Front Page Top

#32 JFM

There are legions who "know more than me." You are just another in the ranks.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-10-22 14:10|| 2009-10-22 14:10|| Front Page Top

#33 JFM

You are correct that every right has limits, but that avoids the issue.

Perhaps it's more clear when phrased this way: Does the right of succession exist? It really doesn't matter what might justify succession in one case and not another because we can take it as given that the opposing sides won't agree on this point.

As for the slavery / civil war stuff, I have no interest in that discussion. In fact I would stridently avoid it. The left will always try to link succession and slavery. They call those who want to restore federalism and the rule of law 'racists.' Why would we let them frame the debate like that?

Posted by Iblis 2009-10-22 14:23|| 2009-10-22 14:23|| Front Page Top

#34 To me the issue is not one of a State's secession but a larger question of how an out-of-control Federal government can legally be reined in.

Posted by JohnQC 2009-10-22 15:43|| 2009-10-22 15:43|| Front Page Top

#35 Besoeker

Soory if I looked arrogant. in fact perhapas was I a bit: two or theree weeks ago there was guy in a Spanish news site who wrote an article telling what marxist and euro-supremùacist historinas have said about Lincoln: Civil War was due to tariffs not slavery. Now I kew the guy was writing in good in good faith: he is an admirer of Reagan. Now the litterature I had read about it denied itr was about tariffs and and gave proof of it. Now who was lying: my sources or his. So in order to write an answer I dug in the Internet abpout the evolution of tariffs between Andrew Jackson and Lincoln and found it was his sources who were lying. I aldo had serious refresher on the venets between war with Mexico and Civil War along with US Constitution.

So I was at my peak, but don't worry in a few moths I will haqve forgotten enough that I take my proper place behind you on knowledge about US history and Constitution.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2009-10-22 16:22|| 2009-10-22 16:22|| Front Page Top

#36 No worries mate. I enjoy your dialogue. We're all in this together and few if any of us will get out ALIVE!

Posted by Besoeker 2009-10-22 18:42|| 2009-10-22 18:42|| Front Page Top

#37 Anguper Hupomosing: Though long held, I think the fear of a constitutional convention is overrated. Remember that it takes 2/3rds of the States to convene, and 3/4ths of the States to approve.

This stops any kind of radicalism dead in its tracks.

Right now, the *only* thing the States agree to, and in a bipartisan way, I might add, is that the federal-State balance of power is out of whack. So correcting that, and restoring order to the federal government totally outweighs any other issues.

But this is not fixable with just an Amendment. To start with, perhaps the most important thing is the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators. Just this alone will restore the ability of the States to veto federal power grabs.

The next thing to be fixed is to decisively limit the federal budget process. A c-c could renounce the national debt, which is probably the fastest route to recovery. Then strictly limit federal spending.

Then a big one. Prohibit the federal government from either directly taxing individuals, or making direct payments to individuals. This would likely mean a national sales tax collected by the States.

Currently the federal government is prohibited from taxing the States directly, and this will probably remain, so the federal government would be dependent on the States for its paycheck.

There would most definitely be a rewrite of both the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, to make them much narrower in scope.

Then a real major headache--the recognition of the corporate structure in the constitution. Almost everyone cringes with the idea of corporations having the same rights as a person, so it is time to define what it is and what are its rights.

Federal judges will no longer be able to order state legislatures to appropriate money, or to create "special masters".

The president will have to have unique enabling legislation to write each and every executive order, and the c-c will have to put limits on presidential signing statements, that are currently unconstitutional.

The vast majority of federal land takings in mostly the western US will have to be returned, and enormous numbers of federal regulations will be deleted, as well as cabinet offices and departments.

I mentioned before that the c-c will be able to relieve any federal officer, agent, official or employee. This will likely mean the end to dozens of federal agencies and departments, without contract or court appeal.

Likely, additional restrictions will be placed on the ability of the senate and president to make treaties, for the president to make an undeclared war, that Posse Comitatus be enshrined in the constitution, and that federal judges are very limited in death penalty appeals, and in permitting litigation to drag on for years.

All of this and more would be needed to turn back a century or more of federal intrusion and unchecked growth. Once rebalanced, the federal-State balance should look a lot more like it did prior to the Civil War.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-10-22 20:57|| 2009-10-22 20:57|| Front Page Top

23:38 gorb
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:21 gromky
23:20 gromky
23:19 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:03 Redneck Jim
23:02 USN, Ret.
22:54 USN, Ret.
22:53 Redneck Jim
22:33 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:29 Alaska Paul
22:25 Matt
22:24 Eric Jablow
22:18 GirlThursday
22:13 Alaska Paul
22:07 GirlThursday
21:19 DMFD
21:18 Barbara Skolaut
21:12 eltoroverde
21:04 lotp
20:57 Anonymoose
20:56 eltoroverde