Palin's Secessionist Ties

[natina]

Palin's Secessionist Ties
Sarah Palin has some explaining to do about her extremist friends and the Alaskan Independence Party, a radical







Sarah Palin: Palling Around With Secessionists

[NYBURBS]

Palin's Secessionist Ties
Sarah Palin has some explaining to do about her extremist friends and the Alaskan Independence Party, a radical
.



Sarah Palin: Palling Around With Secessionists

Oh wow a Secessionist, let's raise Lincoln and Seward from the dead so they can go suspend some civil liberties and hang them some rebels What's a little habeas corpus suspension when there are secessionists to hunt down I'm not a McCain/Palin fan but let's get real here. State Candidates court 3rd party lines all the time. Right to Life, Conservative, Independent, etc, etc, etc... There's plenty of bad shit taking place, the succession of Alaska isn't one of them.

[natina]

raise the dead?

[Mugai_hentaisha]

Although the Civil war (heh eh funny name for a war) will prove me wrong but I thought States have the right to succeed.


TES
William

[hippifried]

States are jurisdictional political entities. A State is not a human being, & therefore has no rights.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

States are jurisdictional political entities. A State is not a human being, & therefore has no rights.

States are nations on par with Germany England and other countries and are made up of people (citizens) if the Citizens so choose they can Succeed.

That is more clear and even though the state has no rights if there exist in a state a party that advocates succession then so be it. There are times I personally think WV would be better off on her own.

TES
William

[hippifried]

States are nations on par with Germany England and other countries and are made up of people (citizens) if the Citizens so choose they can Succeed.

No they aren't. We tried that approach & it didn't work. That's why we ended up holding a Constitutional Convention that took the Articles of Confederation & tossed them in the round file. They aren't even taken into consideration as anything but a mistake when discussing the founding of the nation & aren't listed in the Charters of Freedom by the National Archives.

We're a singular nation, under singular governance, with layers of jurisdictional autonomy granted down through the various local entities for the purpose of making things run smoothly. One Nation, Indivisible!

Now anyone can advocate whatever they want. Well, except for criminal behavior of course. But everyone needs to understand that the United States is not some larger version of the Balkans or the Soviet Union. Even Germany is made up of Prussians, Hessians, & an assortment of other tribal entities. The States that make up the United States don't even have that level of separation. This isn't Mexico, where the various States have different negotiated levels of autonomy. Advocate away. It's great entertainment.

[natina]

these secessionist hate the USA, see the video



Palin's Secessionist Ties
Sarah Palin has some explaining to do about her extremist friends and the Alaskan Independence Party, a radical
.



Sarah Palin: Palling Around With Secessionists

[NYBURBS]

States are nations on par with Germany England and other countries and are made up of people (citizens) if the Citizens so choose they can Succeed.

No they aren't. We tried that approach & it didn't work. That's why we ended up holding a Constitutional Convention that took the Articles of Confederation & tossed them in the round file. They aren't even taken into consideration as anything but a mistake when discussing the founding of the nation & aren't listed in the Charters of Freedom by the National Archives.

We're a singular nation, under singular governance, with layers of jurisdictional autonomy granted down through the various local entities for the purpose of making things run smoothly. One Nation, Indivisible!

Now anyone can advocate whatever they want. Well, except for criminal behavior of course. But everyone needs to understand that the United States is not some larger version of the Balkans or the Soviet Union. Even Germany is made up of Prussians, Hessians, & an assortment of other tribal entities. The States that make up the United States don't even have that level of separation. This isn't Mexico, where the various States have different negotiated levels of autonomy. Advocate away. It's great entertainment.

States are sovereign entities that have entered into a national union. They gave up certain rights in order to obtain the protection that is afforded by a Union. However, that in no way diminishes their sovereignty.

You strike me as a bright guy but I would encourage you to read a bit further into the history of the nation. The civil war did change some things, but even up to about the 1930's the States were the dominant force in this relationship. Since the 1930s there has been a court backed expansion of federal power that has led to this notion of an all powerful national government that simply grants levels of autonomy and jurisdiction to the states.

I am not advocating that a State can just say "peace we're out" but the States most certainly have the power to dissolve the union if enough of them so choose. 2/3 of the State Legislatures so choosing can force Congress to call into session a Constitutional convention. Anything proposed at that convention and later ratified by the States or their convention is binding upon the constitution. That would include amendments allowing the separation of States from the Union.

US Cons Article 5: "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...."

[hippifried]

You can come up with opinions about the "sovereignty" of the States, but sovereignty isn't recognized in a single official document of the US. I imagine it makes a good speech, but so what if you can't back it up with anything other than another opinion from someone else who doesn't have a real sayso.

Sure we can call another Constitutional Convention, but we won't. God himself couldn't convince 2/3 of the US that it would be a good idea to scrap the Constitution. That's what would happen you know. There's no way to restrict a convention. We already found that out. The original purpose of the first (only) convention was to make necessary changes in the Articles of Confederation so they'd work smoothly. Oops! They didn't last 5 minutes. The first order of business was to relegate the A of C to the dustbin of history. The conventioners knew what they'd done. That's why they built in a workaround for amendments. You'll notice that there wasn't another convention called to add the Bill of Rights.

There was a clamor to convene another convention back in the '80s. Supposedly to add a balanced budget amendment. It started to gain momentum till the evangelicals started unanimously climbing on board. That even scared the republicans, & it'd only been a couple of years since Iran had become a theocracy. Needless to say, the "movement" just faded out.

Like I said: Advocate away. But it's going to take a lot more than a declaration of sovereignty & a bunch of philosophical blather to get the US to cede independence to any of the States. We (the USA) bought Alaska & the Louisiana territories. We just took everything else, aside from the original 13 breakaway Brit colonies. None of them did anything on their own to come into existence. 37 of the 50 states were never sovereign in any sense. They gained statehood from US territorial or commonwealth status, including all but 4 of the Confederate States that got slapped down in the Civil War. The only reason there were separate colonies in the first place was because the Europeans set up a feudal system to settle the new world. They were still all Brits. The only time individual independant sovereignty was accepted was the period between the Brits running tailass & the Convention. Once the Constitution was ratified, all that went out the window.