20 states looking for Sovereignty

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

Rep. Sam Rohrer- Penn.

NH Rep works from home

wow....lets examine the PROBLEMS with this idea.

#1: Not a single state is turning down the money, offered by the Federal Goverment, as long as the "strings" aren't attached. If there are "strings" attached, then they don't want the money....but they will take the FEDERAL money as long as no strings are there. So they want the money...but not the responsibilities that come with the money. Thats like having a job that you don't have to go to (a.k.a the "work from home" NH Representatives).

#2: Considering that the money is from a POOL of states, and that it is different per state, according to their needs, then they are getting money that is from other sources. If we were to give Pennsylvania what was paid by Pennsylvania...and ONLY what was paid by Pennsylvania....then they would be offered MUCH less then what they are now, and wouldn't have enough to do half the state programs they have now...or even half the programs they are trying to save.

#3: In a TRUE Republic, which the US has NEVER been, each state is responsible for it's own currency development and tariffs. Half these states, such as Penn and NH, would never survive being able to develop and print it's own currency. There is also the problem that the states in a TRUE Republic have the right to place an EMBARGO on any other state in the Republic, meaning that if, for no real reason at all, NY decides they don't want, or need, to deal with Penn, NH, or any other state, then they can place an Embargo on them, denying to accept their currency, to allow for their currency to be EXCHANGED to another form, or for goods FROM those states to pass through on an established route of trade. Think of how high certian goods will be AFTER this. If you think the price of Lobster diner is high now, wait till that lobster has to go all the way down to Florida, out to the Dakotas, and then across Wisconsin for you to be able to eat it. And such a thing as Fresh Seafood, if the embargo effects that, will be a thing of the past for certian areas.

#4: Their Hypocrites. We all pay taxes. We pay taxes to the States and Counties that we reside in...there are seperate state taxes on food, fuel, electricity, and other products. According to their theory, we should each be allowed to call our State Houses and ask for a allowance of money with no strings, according to our needs. If they refuse, we should tell them that we will then cede from their state and create our own private states. Go ahead...see how far that goes. WE pay the taxes...WE pay their salaries....but WE, as citizens, have very little right with what goes on in our own states, and ceding from the Union will not make that any different. We can petition, bitch, whine, protest, etc, as much as we want, but it depends on the PEOPLE in the office on what happens with OUR money....not us. Also, I don't recall any Republician bitching up a storm like this when Bush sat in office and the last 8 years of our economy was spiraling downwards.

I, for one, will not support any state that threatens to cede from the Union.

Welcome to the fall of our Rome.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

"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"

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

There is more chance that Texas will break into 5 seperate States. They have that option legally. Thats 8 more Senators from "Red" states.

[peelingchrome]

I seem to remember from somewhere that the term 'state' (other than in the USofA) refers to a sovereign country. With that in mind, and from the little I know about individual state charters, it seems logical that states should be able to secede from the Union. From that point on, what they do with their borders and what takes place within their borders should be their own business.

Granted, I feel that most (if not all) of the states in this country are nowhere near viable as independent sovereign entities from an economic point of view. Any state that wishes to secede is going to need to increase their population's economic confidence if they hope to have a chance of surviving such a transition, much less having a chance at long-term viability.

I support each state's rights to do what they will within the rights given to them. Whether that's a good idea in the big picture or not, I don't know.

[peelingchrome]

"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"

My thoughts exactly.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

If only people would start to follow the Constitution. Far to many people have never read it.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

If only people would start to follow the Constitution. Far to many people have never read it.

that goes without saying....but that's not the problem...the problem is that the USofA has NEVER been a True Republic, so to start wanting to act like one now, when our whole economy is in a spiral down, is an INSANELY bad descision. And this isn't JUST about the seperate rights of the states, but whats best for the people as a whole, and I don't think that we will be better off with State Sovereignty over a united Federal Goverment. If anything, we'll be WORSE, because Americans have never had to deal with the reality of a True Republic, if thats what the states making a fuss really want.

Also, there is still the fact that, while our country was spiraling to the point where we are now, in the past 8 years....no one DARED start talks like this, and if anything, thats when it SHOULD have started.

Also...it would be alot MORE viable as a problem to the American People if it wasn't JUST Republicans...because I, with MANY other people I know, both Republican and Democrat, find it funny how, for the past 8 years, when we have been SPIRALLING down the sink of Ecomonic Turmoil, largely because of the Bush Admin, not a single Republican spoke up about such ideas....though it was WELL in their right.

but now, that a Democrat is in office, for like 4 months, and we STILL have a bad economy, lets bitch, whine, and threaten to leave the Union.

does that not seem just....convienent...to you?

[Enishi]

I think its more likely that multiple states will band together to form their own separate countries. I can see the west and east coast becoming separate countries, texas striking off on its own, etc...

[peelingchrome]

Also, there is still the fact that, while our country was spiraling to the point where we are now, in the past 8 years....no one DARED start talks like this, and if anything, thats when it SHOULD have started.

I did, just not in any public forums. I was afraid of governmental persecution. Now that the government is going so far as to persecute people who own flags that our forefathers once did, or people who don't completely agree with what's going on in government, or people who actually read our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not only that, but they are illegally invading privacy to find these people for persecution. I'm afraid for what they'll try to do next, but not so afraid that I'll hide under the bed and wait for the boogey man to go away. One of my favorite books, Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, details the sociological aspect of this pretty well: the author shows (among many other points) that if you give in to a bully you will continue to get bullied, but if you stand up once and for all you will not be bullied anymore. We are so generationally distant from our Founding Fathers that everyone seems to have forgotten personal liberties and community pride, so much so that the asshats in our oligarchical regime political system are trying to bully us once more into submission. I just wonder if the common people of our country today have as much spine as our Founding Fathers had. I'm not saying that I want a bloody revolution, just that I'm sick of being stepped on; I want change as peaceably possible. Our Founding Fathers tried for years to change the system from within the system until they reached a point where they decided that they needed more progress than they were getting. I don't want our government to push their citizens that far, I want the change to come legally and bloodlessly. If there are states that feel they aren't getting the respect they deserve, let them secede legally and bloodlessly and let the rest of us have that option in case we choose to exercise it in the future. If our government starts loosing states (and the taxes those states contribute) they may think twice about shitting on us in the future.

That's just my opinion.

[Rev.Reverence]

I think its more likely that multiple states will band together to form their own separate countries. I can see the west and east coast becoming separate countries, texas striking off on its own, etc...

+1

See the Shadowrun handbook... Thank you...that is all.

[Scary Guy]

I see us needing passports to go from state to state very soon... or NID cards.

Also what does this mean for the American Union plan?

[peelingchrome]

+1

See the Shadowrun handbook... Thank you...that is all.

HAH! I forgot about that one... awesome!

I see us needing passports to go from state to state very soon... or NID cards.

Also what does this mean for the American Union plan?

Umm... Europe got along ok for centuries with the same sort of thing.

If by American Union plan, you are referring to the Bilderberg Group plan, (while I'm not yet convinced they even exist) then I think it takes said plan back a few hundred years. I'm ok with that.

[Tacohitts]

Those huge fortune fucktard corporations and their shity CEO's need to stay the F$#@ out of government,and yes I know about the Bilderberg Group from a friend at work.

PLaces like World Com need to go the way of Enron.and their CEO's and any of their crooked two legged garbage need to be left on an island to rot,

we shall see how Texas goes on wanting to be on its own.

[Rev.Reverence]

HAH! I forgot about that one... awesome!

I've been paying attention

[n0Mad]

If only people would start to follow the Constitution. Far to many people have never read it.

I need to find where to get one of those bumper stickers that says, "Legalize the Constitution".

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

that goes without saying....but that's not the problem...the problem is that the USofA has NEVER been a True Republic, so to start wanting to act like one now, when our whole economy is in a spiral down, is an INSANELY bad descision. And this isn't JUST about the seperate rights of the states, but whats best for the people as a whole, and I don't think that we will be better off with State Sovereignty over a united Federal Goverment. If anything, we'll be WORSE, because Americans have never had to deal with the reality of a True Republic, if thats what the states making a fuss really want.

Also, there is still the fact that, while our country was spiraling to the point where we are now, in the past 8 years....no one DARED start talks like this, and if anything, thats when it SHOULD have started.

Also...it would be alot MORE viable as a problem to the American People if it wasn't JUST Republicans...because I, with MANY other people I know, both Republican and Democrat, find it funny how, for the past 8 years, when we have been SPIRALLING down the sink of Ecomonic Turmoil, largely because of the Bush Admin, not a single Republican spoke up about such ideas....though it was WELL in their right.

but now, that a Democrat is in office, for like 4 months, and we STILL have a bad economy, lets bitch, whine, and threaten to leave the Union.

does that not seem just....convienent...to you?

I think the tipping point was when the Hope we were promised turned out to be all smoke and mirrors. People were already very very sick of Congress... in the last twos years of the Bush administration, Congress somehow managed to get lower approval ratings than he did. Those ratings are not much better under Obama.

Nancy Pelosi is ruling the House like a dictator and changed the rules so that no alternative bills can be proposed by the minority. Now the Democrats have changed the rules again so that that a simple majority is all it takes to pass a bill.

Thats why I went to the Tea Party. Thats why most of the 500,000+ people are Tea Partys went. We are sick and tired of our elected officials not listening to We The People.

BTW. The USA was never intended to be a true republic. It's a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference. The Federal government is supposed to have limited power with Checks and balances. Thats alls gone now that we have one party in full control of two of the three branches.

[Scary Guy]

BTW. The USA was never intended to be a true republic. It's a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference. The Federal government is supposed to have limited power with Checks and balances. Thats alls gone now that we have one party in full control of two of the three branches.

I didn't hear you complaining when it was YOUR party though :D

Screw the one party system, masquerading as a two party system. All they do is hand power back and forth.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

When were the Independents in power?

[Slogo]

"I will go to South Carolina and hang the first secessionist I see from the first tree I can reach." ~ Andrew Jackson

Who says Dems can't be tough?

[peelingchrome]

"I will go to South Carolina and hang the first secessionist I see from the first tree I can reach." ~ Andrew Jackson

Who says Dems can't be tough?

Sure they can be tough, when someone threatens to take away some of their tax-paying population. Gotta have those taxes for those nanny programs...

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

BTW. The USA was never intended to be a true republic. It's a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference. The Federal government is supposed to have limited power with Checks and balances. Thats alls gone now that we have one party in full control of two of the three branches.

Actually...it's BEEN gone

"past years when Republicans ran Congress and, with George W. Bush in the White House, excluded Democrats from lawmaking. " - Quote from NY times.

John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the perceived threat of majoritarianism, thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.[2] The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.

from the Tyranny of the Majority....like what the Republicans have done MULTIPLE times in the past???

Also

A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power."

Absolute would be that one side control the majority of power in ALL of the branches, which has not happened yet, but while the Democrats seem to be willing to reach across the lines, certian Republicans have stated, in house, that they REFUSE to vote on the presidents' and offers, even before they are heard...hell...even before the President ARRIVES at the Senate or House.

like I said...this whole thing is one sided, has nothing to do with states rights, and is a VERY bad idea.

[TitsMcGee]

Actually...it's BEEN gone

"past years when Republicans ran Congress and, with George W. Bush in the White House, excluded Democrats from lawmaking. " - Quote from NY times.

from the Tyranny of the Majority....like what the Republicans have done MULTIPLE times in the past???

Also

Absolute would be that one side control the majority of power in ALL of the branches, which has not happened yet, but while the Democrats seem to be willing to reach across the lines, certian Republicans have stated, in house, that they REFUSE to vote on the presidents' and offers, even before they are heard...hell...even before the President ARRIVES at the Senate or House.

like I said...this whole thing is one sided, has nothing to do with states rights, and is a VERY bad idea.

I wouldn't really consider the New York Times as a very good source since they are extreamly liberal. Non bias media is best for sources.

[IsleofRhodesEnt]

I wouldn't really consider the New York Times as a very good source since they are extreamly liberal. Non bias media is best for sources.

Doesn't make the quote any less true....All we have to do is look at the last administration to see how they abused majority control.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

With an expanded majority in the 111th Congress Speaker Pelosi has decided to revisit a fight she lost in May of 2007.

At the time it was only a few months into the new Congress, but Democrats had become frustrated with the Republicans success in forcing votes on tough issues. Unable to maintain control under the same rules Hillary Clinton had famously accused Republicans of using to run the House, "like a plantation ... in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard," they decided to take the extraordinary step of altering the rules mid-session to limit debate.

As Politico described the plan,"Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822." This power grab provoked an immediate backlash, with Republicans essentially shutting down the chamber by forcing a series of procedural votes on the House floor. In the face of such a strong response the Democrats backed down and withdrew the proposal.

But it appears that Speaker Pelosi was merely biding her time. With the start of the 111th Congress this week Democrats unveiled a package of rules changes that go far beyond what they were attempting in 2007. While clearly outling their opposition House Republicans were unable to prevent the rules from being adopted on a nearly party line vote of 242-181 with only 6 Democrats finding the courage to vote against their party.

These new rules: limit the right of the minority to offer motions to recommit; abolish term limits on Committee Chairs, returning the House to the pre-1995 status quo where powerful chairs refused to relinquish power, serving until death or retirement; weaken the pay-go rules that Democrats campaigned on in 2006; and reverse the prohibition on votes being held open for the purpose of changing the outcome.

This is in stark contrast to the many promises Democrats made before taking power, such as Steny Hoyer's statement that, "We intend to have a Rules Committee … that gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability to be heard and considered on the floor of the House" (CongressDaily PM, 12/5/2006) and Nancy Pelosi's pledge, "...to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." It also violates the spirit of their campaign document 'A New Direction for America' published in June of 2006 that outlined a Congress that would work for all Americans instead of simply a narrow constituency.

Change indeed.

[Invictus]

It doesn't matter who did it first, only who does it last. It was wrong when the Republicans were in power, and it's still wrong to my mind. I don't particularly care which party stops it, only that it is stopped. Once that hurdle is crossed then we can deal with the other issues (the so called two party system among those). Actually, strategically speaking this poor economy is the perfect time to threaten a move like this. It such a move were to happen and the economy were to undergo total collapse then those in power are going to be in a very, very bad position. A far worse position than they're in now.