Palin's Secessionist Ties

[NYBURBS]

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.

And your whole argument still just danced around the point I made. You originally said the States were nothing more than layers or jurisdiction and that we are just really 1 nation/government. I pointed out that the States have the ability to absolutely scrap the national government or to secede from the union through use of a convention, which all but destroys the premise of your original argument. That is not saying that they will call a convention (though through listening to professors for my law classes apparently we are 2 state declarations shy of a 2nd convention right now).

I'm well aware of the dangers that are inherent in a convention, and that is why they chose a different manner to propose and ratify the Bill of Rights and every Amendment since then. Nor have I advocated that States should secede. I am simply saying that this whole 1 central overriding government is dangerous. Take for instance the overuse of the commerce clause, which has allowed the federal government to intervene in all manner of state affairs. It has caused some good outcomes like laws prohibiting child labor, but it has also allowed the federal government to prohibit States from expanding rights such as decriminalizing certain drugs (California and the medical marijuana for example).

Given the makeup at any particular time in Congress, those same overreaching powers could be spun to prohibit gay marriages or civil unions in the States also (especially if a sympathetic Supreme Court were sitting).

On a closing point to another poster, I'd remind you that each State in court is protected by a doctrine known as Sovereign Immunity. With only some exceptions, they are immune to suit unless they have actually waived that right through legislation.

[hippifried]

32 States have declared to convene another convention??? I don't think so. Where'd you get that information? I think you're going to have to show me something on that. Got a source?

My position hasn't changed. We're a single nation, with a single government, based on a single document. Because we're a democracy, we have the ability to disolve the nation & scrap the Constitution, but if we do that, then we're just a land mass up for grabs. You can bet the eurotrash would be trying to come in & subjugate the place. Who's gonna stop them?

This isn't Europe. State boundaries don't separate ethnic or linguistic tribes. There's no kings or other royalty. The States are subject to the Constitution, & their State Constitutions are required to mirror it. They're subordinate to the federal government. Even if you managed to get 34 of the States to call a Convention, anything they come up with is subject to ratification by 38 of the States. Good luck on that. Without ratification, the works of a convention are null & moot. Oh & good luck getting anything you ever thought you wanted out of a convention with at least 538 delegates or maybe more if the commonwealth & territories get seated. There's no rules governing a convention, & those people are US citizens too. Hell it'll probably take 10 or 20 years just to get the convention rules worked out, & States might change their mind in the meantime as to whether they even want to have one.

If Idaho were to successfully secede from the US, I wonder if they'd deport all those survivalists, neo-nazis, Klanners, & other various nutcases that have migrated to Cour d'Elaine in the last decade o 2. Actually, I believe the most intense secessionist movement in the US since the civil war was the attempt by New York City to form it's own State in the '70s.

The federal government can be overbearing at times, & the States bitch about it, But an earmark or 2 will usually pacify them & shut them up.

[NYBURBS]

We're a single national government made up of 50 regional governments and which is suppose to be more powerful is based upon the subject matter. There has been a massive over-reach by the Federal government in the past 80 years or so, this overreach has blurred the perspective many people have.

As for not being Europe with different ethnic lines separated by state boundaries, I LOL'd oh so hard. We're more ethnically diverse than probably any nation on earth, and also have intense regional differences (often times based on concentrations of particular ethnic/religious groups). That is not to say that we don't all share common interests, but this idea of what is good in California is good for New Hampshire doesn't necessarily hold true.

This federal/state debate has been going on since the founding of the Republic. I can see it here with people that are in love with the federal reserve, big government, and other measures long championed by federalists. While I am a huge fan of individual rights (not always championed by States), I see the inherent evil in large central government.

As to the state applications, as I had said it was something I had heard discussed in class. It took a few different Google search combos but the best I could get is that up to this point on specific measures there have been up to 33 state applications to hold a convention but on a specific matter (here it was re-apportionment). One of the debated mysteries is whether or not delegates could be bound to consider only that proposed topic or whether they may turn to whatever subject matter they wish. Another debate is whether once submitted can an application be withdrawn by a latter legislature.

[hippifried]

We're a single national government made up of 50 regional governments and which is suppose to be more powerful is based upon the subject matter.

50 State governments, to be more accurate. Regions can encompass multiple States or be segments of States. There's also hundreds of county governments & thousands of municipal governments.They all have defined borders & all 3 branches of governance. How far are you willing to take this sovereignty argument? Subordinate jurisdiction lines are merely there so the minutiae of governance can be delegated.

We're more ethnically diverse than probably any nation on earth, and also have intense regional differences (often times based on concentrations of particular ethnic/religious groups).

Yes, but that diversity doesn't break down along state lines like it does in Europe. There's still ethnic animosity too, but we don't a white state & a black state, or a hispanic state.

The Navajo are the largest Indian trime in America, & they have their own Government as a sovereign nation by treaty. The Navajo reservation is enormous & 4 corners (where Arizona, Utah, Colorado, & New Mexico come together) is within the reservation. You think you've seen ethnic diversity on the east coast? Crossing the Painted Desert is like taking a sunday afternoon drive on Mars. If you have occasion to stop & talk to any of the people who live there, you'll get a sense of just how alien you are. Not them. Although they're relative newcomers to the region of the Canyonlands & monuments, their migration was still pre-columbian. The really old tribe, who are a lot more remote & traditional, are the Hopis. the city of Old Oraibi has been continuously inhabited for somewhere between 2000 & 3000 years. Hard to tell exactly because tourists & archeologists aren't aren't allowed there. Easy enough to enforce since it's on top of a mesa & the only way up is to climb up the carved steps & wooden ladders or by helicopter, & they don't have a helipad.

Needless to say: There's more diversity in America than even most Americans know about. It has nothing to do with the State boundaries. They were drawn along tribal & ethnic lines in Europe but not here. The formation of what we now call the USA was just a land grab without a thought to preexisting lines or who lived where.

This federal/state debate has been going on since the founding of the Republic.

Yeah, but it's just rhetorical philosophy. Argument for the hell of it. The only legal basis for anything is the US Constitution. government is just what we make it in a democracy. No government is inherently evil. It can't be. It's an inanimate abstract. Big government is just unwieldy. That's why we delegate the minutiae.

As for individual rights: Our separation from the corruption of European monarchy is based on the idea that they're yours whether you're a fan or not.

One of the debated mysteries is whether or not delegates could be bound to consider only that proposed topic or whether they may turn to whatever subject matter they wish.

I don't see how a national convention can be precontrolled at all, since it's a workaround to bypass the Congress in the first place. Seems to me that it's more of a failsafe mechanism anyway, in case everything falls apart. The only control is the Constitution itself, & theres no details except for how to get it started. There's nothing keeping the convention from writing its own rules.

Another debate is whether once submitted can an application be withdrawn by a latter legislature.

Why not? A legislature can't be bound by a previous legislature. There's a general election every 2 years. The people always retain the right to change their mind. That's why we retained the power to change the Constitution itself.

[NYBURBS]

How far are you willing to take this sovereignty argument?

Depending upon the particulars, fairly far. I would argue that the 14th Amendment prohibits State actions that violate the stated rights of the first 8 Amendments (some later ones specifically prohibit State or Federal violation, such as the 13th). The 10th Amendment is quite clear "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." The rest of my argument on that I have already posted previously in this thread.

Yes, but that diversity doesn't break down along state lines like it does in Europe. There's still ethnic animosity too, but we don't a white state & a black state, or a Hispanic state.

It's not specifically delineated, but certain States have far heavier concentrations of specific ethnic groups. Florida and Hispanics for example (Cubans in particular). Also some States are virtually all white, while others retain a sizable black population. Even in Europe there were mixed States ethnically speaking. Almost no place is completely homogeneous.

Yeah, but it's just rhetorical philosophy. Argument for the hell of it. The only legal basis for anything is the US Constitution. government is just what we make it in a democracy. No government is inherently evil. It can't be. It's an inanimate abstract. Big government is just unwieldy. That's why we delegate the minutiae.

It's not rhetorical in the least, in fact it is now battled out constantly in the Supreme Court, and certain political philosophies are seeing a resurgence due to this issue (Ron Paul's popular primary bid for example). The Constitution is not always specific, and even when it is there are plenty of people that wish to read it in some different light (the living document vs textualism/originalism). Further, decentralization of power is done because it best reflects the wishes of the governed, and is more easily changed, not just because centralized power is unwieldy.

Why not? A legislature can't be bound by a previous legislature. There's a general election every 2 years. The people always retain the right to change their mind. That's why we retained the power to change the Constitution itself.

Like everything in Constitutional law, nothing is really a given. You can argue one side of the coin and I can argue the opposite (just as we often do here). There are very few things that are considered absolutes, even when they are written that way.

[hippifried]

Wow! This thread almost dropped off the page with all the spams.

Ok, back to the burb blurb.

All States are required to follow the US Constitution. All of it, including all 27 Amendments where applicable. No cherry-picking allowed. The only time a State can trump is when their constitution or law recognizes more individual rights than the federal law. If it ain't federally codified or set in the precident of common law, then the 10th Amendment comes into play. But federal law supercedes state law & the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
From Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

My personal favorite of the Amendments is the 9th.

Almost no place is completely homogeneous.

True, but America's a lot less homogenenous than that. There's really nothing that separates the States, ethnically or culturally. Some are more urbanized & industrialized, but they all have some agriculture going on & rural areas. There's no big issue like slavery to divide the country. The only animosity is political, & that's just the doing of loudmouthed assholes. The only reason Alaska would want to secede would be to join OPEC. I really doubt there's much support in any meaningful way. Most people are smarter than the 2 or 3 dozen separatists who make all the noise.

The powers of the federal government have been battled out in the SCOTUS since the founding. This is nothing new. The SCOTUS has the last say. Always. But they still answer to the Constitution, just like everybody else. The document is vague by design because it's impossible to codify for all contingencies. It was early in the industrial revolution & everybody could see that there were going to be changes coming in bunches.

I have a problem with textualism in a vague document, & I can't subscribe to the idea of ouija board originalism (too much cherry picking). I do prefer to defer to the actual text rather than any of the "...but the founders really meant..." bullshit. I'm tired of hearing about the "Federalist Papers". I'll buy into that when the writings of the anti-federalists get equal time. It bothers me when I hear Scalia talk about the writings of Hamilton as if they're the be all & end all of Constitutional understanding. The guy proposed a quasi-monarchy at the Convention & argued against a bill of rights in the document until it became obvious that it wouldn't get ratified without a promise to include it. He wasn't involved in authorship of the "Bill of Rights" at all, & really wasn't all that much of a factor at the Convention. From what I can figure out, everybody hated him. Even Madison & maybe John Jay. He backstabbed Adams politically. He was such an asshole, he ended up getting himself shot by the sitting Vice President of the US. I can't help but wonder if anybody was even upset about it at the time. Does that put me in the camp of the "living document" yokels?

certain political philosophies are seeing a resurgence due to this issue (Ron Paul's popular primary bid for example)

Huh?? Ron Paul got clobbered in the primaries. The voters bitchslapped him good. Hell, he's been running for President as long as anybody can remember. He makes some good points, but his overall platform isn't going to fly with the American public. He got a lot of press this time around & for the last few years around the internet. I think he got the message this time. Maybe his supporters should too. He's actually more effective in the Congress than he'd ever be as President.

You know what they say about opinions. Everybody has one. But there's no rules for calling a convention other than how many States it takes. There's no precident on a State's ability to withdraw from the call either.

[NYBURBS]

Wow! This thread almost dropped off the page with all the spams.

Ok, back to the burb blurb.

All States are required to follow the US Constitution. All of it, including all 27 Amendments where applicable. No cherry-picking allowed. The only time a State can trump is when their constitution or law recognizes more individual rights than the federal law. If it ain't federally codified or set in the precident of common law, then the 10th Amendment comes into play. But federal law supercedes state law & the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

First of all the bill of rights have only applied to the States since the 14th Amendment. In actuality the Supreme Court has cherry picked which provisions apply to the states and when, through a process known as incorporation. They pick what applies through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment and I can assure you it has been quite selective at times. I could make a very valid argument that only the first 8 (some later ones were more specific about who they apply to) were meant to be incorporated and meant to be done through the privileges and immunities clause but that would take up a lot of space. As for the 9th Amendment, I like it also. That doesn't mean I think it was meant to apply to the States.

Now with all due respect, what is this "if it's not federally codified" nonsense? The feds can codify whatever they want, it doesn't mean it is Constitutional. Further common law can never trump statutory law, except as laid out in the 7th Amendment, unless you are referring to SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, but that is because the Cons trumps statutory law. The Supremacy clause of the constitution applies only where the federal government is empowered to legislate. If you read Article I §8 and the 10th Amendment, it is made clear that it is only those enumerated powers and no more. What has taken place though is a gross misreading and distortion of certain clauses, thus leading to this greatly expanded federal government.

Textualism and originalism are not so much about what the founding fathers meant, as it is understanding the language and context at the time of the framing. You strike me as the living breathing document type and I would warn you that as appealing as that may be at times, it leaves the threat of easy revision by whatever group is in power on the court. Your right there is cherry picking on all sides but I would tell you that it takes place in a "living" document philosophy more so than in other modes.

As for Ron Paul, he did terrific if you consider the fact that he is considered outside the politically accepted mainstream. He has energized quite a large movement, and I don't think it's going away any time soon.

On a closing note, I see you talking again about Alaska. Let me remind you that I have never said anywhere in this thread that Alaska will or should secede. I simply said it is possible for States to leave and I have taken issue with your view of this one all powerful super controlling federal government.

[hippifried]

First of all the bill of rights have only applied to the States since the 14th Amendment. In actuality the Supreme Court has cherry picked which provisions apply to the states and when, through a process known as incorporation. They pick what applies through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment and I can assure you it has been quite selective at times. I could make a very valid argument that only the first 8 (some later ones were more specific about who they apply to) were meant to be incorporated and meant to be done through the privileges and immunities clause but that would take up a lot of space.

Where did that nonsense come from? Constitutional amendments are just that. They're changes & additions to the original document, & as such, they're part of the document itself. Amendment 3 is every bit as much a part of the document as Article 3. Again, I have to point out Article 6. Second paragraph to be precise. It's the first quote in my last post. It's clear & concise. You're the one who's trying to cherrypick. The SCOTUS doesn't always get it right, but there's never been an exemption for States to not be bound by the US Constitution. Not ever.

As for the 9th Amendment, I like it also. That doesn't mean I think it was meant to apply to the States.

States don't have rights. It doesn't even mention States at all. No need. There's Article 6. I don't have rights because they're written into law. I don't have rights because I'm an American. I have rights because I'm a human being, & rights are unalienable. I'm just fortunate to be a citizen of a nation that recognizes certain rights, as well as recognizing that rights aren't granted, in writing. I chose my parents well.

Now with all due respect, what is this "if it's not federally codified" nonsense? The feds can codify whatever they want, it doesn't mean it is Constitutional. Further common law can never trump statutory law, except as laid out in the 7th Amendment, unless you are referring to SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution, but that is because the Cons trumps statutory law. The Supremacy clause of the constitution applies only where the federal government is empowered to legislate. If you read Article I §8 and the 10th Amendment, it is made clear that it is only those enumerated powers and no more. What has taken place though is a gross misreading and distortion of certain clauses, thus leading to this greatly expanded federal government.

Well everybody has an opinion, & there's always hairsplitting when arguing opinions. But Article I-8 has that pesky last clause. The first clause gives them the power to provide for the General welfare of the US & the 3rd gives them power to regulate commerce among the States. That's pretty broad. The SCOTUS is the final authority on what's Constitutional & what isn't. I think we can agree that the federal government is bloated & unwieldy. It needs a major streamlining. It oversteps its bounds too, but for the most part, it's doing what it's supposed to do & what we tell it to do.

I gotta run but I'll be back to finish.

[NYBURBS]

Where did that nonsense come from? Constitutional amendments are just that. They're changes & additions to the original document, & as such, they're part of the document itself. Amendment 3 is every bit as much a part of the document as Article 3. Again, I have to point out Article 6. Second paragraph to be precise. It's the first quote in my last post. It's clear & concise. You're the one who's trying to cherrypick. The SCOTUS doesn't always get it right, but there's never been an exemption for States to not be bound by the US Constitution. Not ever.

Yea they are every bit part of the Constitution. That does not change the point I made. Originally the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, that is 100% historical fact. Should you wish to read up on it the case is Barron v Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833). Further given the way SCOTUS interprets the 14th Amendment not every part of the original bill of rights applies to the States. They have incorporated certain rights as time has gone on through the due process clause, which I disagree with since I think the first 8 should apply through the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Lastly, I haven't cherry picked anything, the supremacy clause only applies when the federal government is empowered to act/legislate on a given matter. That is a fact, not even one that can be reasonably debated.

States don't have rights. It doesn't even mention States at all. No need. There's Article 6. I don't have rights because they're written into law. I don't have rights because I'm an American. I have rights because I'm a human being, & rights are unalienable. I'm just fortunate to be a citizen of a nation that recognizes certain rights, as well as recognizing that rights aren't granted, in writing. I chose my parents well.

Yea you're right about natural rights, I'm a big proponent. That does not change the fact that to incorporate the 9th Amendment is to essentially turn the SCOTUS into the supreme legislature for all 50 States. It's a fine Amendment but is meant to guard against the federal power. As for States, they most certainly do have rights/powers. They are representative of the people that inhabit them and derive their power and rights from that. The idea was that a State would be far more responsive to its people than a massive central government.

Well everybody has an opinion, & there's always hairsplitting when arguing opinions. But Article I-8 has that pesky last clause. The first clause gives them the power to provide for the General welfare of the US & the 3rd gives them power to regulate commerce among the States. That's pretty broad. The SCOTUS is the final authority on what's Constitutional & what isn't. I think we can agree that the federal government is bloated & unwieldy. It needs a major streamlining. It oversteps its bounds too, but for the most part, it's doing what it's supposed to do & what we tell it to do.

Yea its not so much opinion though, since the law of the land was far different up until the early 20th century. What took place was a drastic power grab and far too many people went along with it. They did it in the name of great causes like ending child labor, ending the depression, etc, but the fact remains that in the course of 30 or 40 years the federal government usurped broad powers. For instance that they should be able to regulate intra-state in order to better regulate inter-state. This of course is the danger that goes with the "living" constitution theory. Of course the language of the commerce clause is broad and personally I'd of preferred that it hadn't been included as such (there were arguments against that language during ratification). I think you'll also find that the court consistently refused any attempt to embrace that language until FDR led an all out assault on the court with his court packing plan.