Very very weird.

Here, captain trips and samantha agree on something. Probably for different REASONS, but we agree.

This is a REAL humdinger.

Our Govt. is SERIOUSLY out of control.

The people have let themselves become like herd animals and become "we the sheeple".

We now "do everything big mother" TELLS us to do.

I beleive it's our own fault for letting this happen.

Some people just aren't worth two seconds of your time.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

This is unfortunately true. Any secession will need to be done by a state having more established economic clout, and by a net 'payer' that sends more money to DC than they get back by a significant margin. (Don't know if Vermont fits that latter or not.)

That depends on whether the issues show any potential for resolution. From what I understand of the VT seccessionist movement, the issues not only show no potential progress, but are getting worse. In that case, quitting probably Is the most productive resolution. (Assuming avoiding the current hardships warrants incurring the implied hardships of the previous paragraph.)

If the Confederacy hadn't been impatient and attacked Fort Sumter, the Civil War would've been Unconstitutional (and might be anyway). Because secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that right, by default, falls to the individual states. Lincoln justified forced reunification based on prior ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which, as I understand it, disallowed secession. If some state far enough west to have not been invovled with the AoC were to secede, there would be no legal justification for US aggression. (As opposed to flimsy legal justification.)

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

Secession makes no sense from a legal and constitutional perspective. A revolutionary one, yes, but not a legal one under the Constitutional instrument. If anything the Constitution shows the contract between parties, and parties cannot legally breach contracts. What is not included in an agreement is deemed excluded by contract concepts, and the right or ability to secede is not included in the agreement. Instead, they agree to unity and obligations to each other via a federal system, the documents contains things such as supremacy clauses, etc. It also makes no sense to form 'a more perfect union' by making it weaker than the Articles of Confederation that had already expressly disallowed secession as you mentioned by making the confederation 'perpetual.' Nothing could make a new nation/union more weak than no glue to bind it, and it stands to reason that there was no longer any need to state the obvious on the perpetual nature of the union. Moreover, a good number of the states were formed out of federal property afterwards--property that was purchased with federal funds in many cases--and to think that these federal creations are somehow superior in standing to the entity that owned and created them stands on its head.

__________________
Around 200,000 Irish immigrants served in the Union and Confederate armies in the American Civil War, often forming their own regiments and, at times, fought each other. At Fredericksburg, the Union’s Irish Brigade faced the Irish McMillan's Guards of Cobb's 24th Georgia entrenched in a sunken road behind a stone wall. Ordered to make a suicidal charge, it became one of the most famous events of the Civil War. The re-enactment portrayed in the movie Gods and Generals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qVCxEupPag

In the last 10 years Vermont has been in a positive cash flow situation with the federal govt. Between $1.03 and $1.13 returned for every dollar collected by the IRS in that state.

So the first result of this plan would be a decrease in the states standard of living. Followed closely, I'd guess, by a tax increase by the new national govt to replace the loss.

Oh well. What does that comedian say? "You can't fix stupid" or something to that effect.

__________________
"You don't have to practice being miserable. Everything else we're gonna work on." - A wise Platoon Sgt.

A new civil war? I'm not betting on Vermont.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Revolution and secession are different things. The Civil War wasn't a civil war. (And no, I'm not just using the wrong definition of 'civil.') If VT wanted to raid DC and have a coup, That would be a revolution.

True, but if one party is in significant breach, isn't the other party allowed to declare the contract null and void?

But what if the contract includes a rider covering how one should handle such non-included items? Say something to the effect of: 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? Given that secession is not specifically delegated to the US, nor explicitly prohibited to the individual states, I'd go out on a limb and posit that perhaps it's reserved to the states.

I don't know why it was left out. Perhaps the benefits of operating as a more cohesive group under a 'new improved contract' was considered a carrot to replace the AoC's stick. Or maybe they considered the non-secession aspect of the AoC to be one of its faults. In any case, it's not there.

But it Was needed to state what many considered to be the obvious nature of the items listed in the Bill of Rights? That's not very consistent.

You may have a point here - It's always good to find something where you know you're going to learn something from the ensuing discussion!

The Constitution is a contract between parties. Not unlike a legal firm. Like a legal firm, it can associate with 'lesser parties' such as employees or territories. There are procedures for raising such lesser parties to equal status of full partner, or of recognized State. Once a full partner, they retain full rights under the initial partnership contract, including appropriate rights and procedures for leaving the partnership. Once the US recognized, say, Louisiana as a State, it gained the various rights and powers allowed by the Constitution, including the implicit right to secede. I agree that doesn't seem fair to the US as a whole, especially given the cost of the Louisiana Purchase, but that's the way the contract was worded, which is hardly Louisiana's fault.


Given the small margin of difference, and that it only applies to whatever portion of their GSP (Gross State Product) is a result of Federal spending, I'd venture that whatever they lose in net cash flow they would probably recoup in increased efficiency of not having to deal with national bureaucracies.

The standard of living would probably still go down due to general upheaval and the earlier-mentioned difficulties of having a large portion of their commerce now being considered 'international', but the federal spending aspect shouldn't be significant.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I believe their argument is that it's the Federal government that is no longer abiding by that contract and system.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!