Topic: Nulification gathers steam, Secession!

[mlinder]

So Im a little confused...is this thread about nulification of laws you dont like or about secession from the United States?
I think it was originally about nullification.
If its the latter then do you really think a state can survive on its own economically speaking? Where do you see the US militarily in all this? Presumably the US militarily is there to defend the country of the USA. Not a single state. On a wider note if a single state seceeded and it spread such that there were no longer 50 states but say only 20 states how would you compete internationally? Or dont you care that you would lose your superpower status? I think its a pipe dream  

As for the original point:
"Here in Virginia a bill has or is being introduced to nullify the effects of a National Health Care act should it pass
and seem detrimental to Virginians. "

What is the alternative being proposed for all the uninsured? There is a reason why they are uninsured. Not making much progress by nullifying new laws....so?

I think it was originally about States nullifying federal alws they found to be unconstitutional.

Maybe states (think they) can do a better job with their individual citizen bases, instead of the (larger) bureaucracy of the fed.

[andy750]

What is unconstitutional about providing universal health care? Still confused...

I guess Mass. is doing a better job than the Feds since it does have Universal Health care...and maybe thats why CA wants to follow Mass. lead.

[333]

WE, the people sent these Congressmen and Senators to Washington.  And it sounds to me that when the states don't like the legislation that comes out of Washington, they can choose to ignore it.  Sore losers is more like it.  Example;  If Virginia passes HJ7, which basically will allow Virginia to ignore any national healthcare bill that may get to law, then someone who needs healthcare and can't afford it is still out of luck.  So we turn into a government for the people, as long as you live in a state that allows it.  In other words, government for some of the people, not all of the people.  Fair?  Hardly.

[Rocking-M]

So Im a little confused...is this thread about nulification of laws you dont like or about secession from the United States?

one may lead to another should the Federal Government seek to enforce a law that has been nullified by a State. That's why I don't seem to be able to separate one from the other.

If its the latter then do you really think a state can survive on its own economically speaking? Where do you see the US militarily in all this? Presumably the US militarily is there to defend the country of the USA. Not a single state. On a wider note if a single state seceded and it spread such that there were no longer 50 states but say only 20 states how would you compete internationally? Or dont you care that you would lose your superpower status? I think its a pipe dream  

Yes, I think a State can survive on it's own economically. The seceding State would be responsible for it's own defense. That's okay with me. Is it necessary to compete internationally if "the people" of the seceding State are okay with providing for themselves and their own happiness? Denmark comes to mind for some reason. No I don't care about superpower status. Might be a pipe dream.

As for the original point:
"Here in Virginia a bill has or is being introduced to nullify the effects of a National Health Care act should it pass
and seem detrimental to Virginians. "

What is the alternative being proposed for all the uninsured? There is a reason why they are uninsured. Not making much progress by nullifying new laws....so?

The idea here is that the Federal can not make the citizen of a sovereign State buy into the Federal program. I'd like to see other things nullified as well, say, social security and federal income tax, both of which are unconstitutional.

[edbikerii]

Surprise, but California has the 6th largest GDP of all NATIONS -- bigger than the entire UK.  Texas would be 15th, and New York 16th.  That is, if they were independent nations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

"Superpower status" of the United States might be lost, but there are states that would be better off individually.  Perhaps those states would have a harder time attracting business if the US were no longer "united".

For the record, I don't think it would be in our best interest to have states seceding from the union, but the point is that if the Fed doesn't start paying attention and stop screwing around, the states are guaranteed that right in the Constitution.


As for the "uninsured", first off, the majority of the problem would disappear if we stopped throwing away 24% of the federal budget on welfare & medicaid, and instead invested that money in innovative small businesses in order to stimulate new products, new technologies and sustainable job growth.  Get them back to work, and they'll have insurance again.

There have been various healthcare reform plans proposed, but they all have been COMPLETELY IGNORED by our incumbent government in the name of socialist-style "reform".  Most notably, the John Mackey plan:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

The republicans (uh oh -- even if you think "republican" is a dirty word, you'd be smart to read their ideas) have formulated a superior plan as well.  The CBO has stated that unlike Obama's plan, it would, in fact, reduce the deficit by $68 Billion over ten years:

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Does anyone else wonder why none of these plans get get any press?  Maybe it is because the American public really doesn't give a damn.  It turns out that 87% of Americans are perfectly happy with the CURRENT health care system:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122663/Private-Public-Health-Plan-Subscribers-Rate-Plans-Similarly.aspx?CSTS=alert

So why all the fuss?

So Im a little confused...is this thread about nulification of laws you dont like or about secession from the United States?

If its the latter then do you really think a state can survive on its own economically speaking? Where do you see the US militarily in all this? Presumably the US militarily is there to defend the country of the USA. Not a single state. On a wider note if a single state seceeded and it spread such that there were no longer 50 states but say only 20 states how would you compete internationally? Or dont you care that you would lose your superpower status? I think its a pipe dream  

As for the original point:
"Here in Virginia a bill has or is being introduced to nullify the effects of a National Health Care act should it pass
and seem detrimental to Virginians. "

What is the alternative being proposed for all the uninsured? There is a reason why they are uninsured. Not making much progress by nullifying new laws....so?

[Bob Wessner]

..the states are guaranteed that right in the Constitution.

How so?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

[Rocking-M]

..the states are guaranteed that right in the Constitution.

How so?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

The writer of that article is wrong, a State does not need permission to withdraw. But,

in fact Bob is right about the constitutional aspects. In spirit Ed is right. No where is secession mentioned in the constitution. Why, because it is recognized as the right to self-government to all who were active in writing the constitution. In fact to even put it in was seen as undermining the
right.

A real good read is found in "A View of the Constitution" by William Rawle, LL. D 1825, "Secession as Taught at West Point".

Throughout his introduction, Rawle leaves little room to question the fact of who created the Federal Government. He clearly
states that each State existed as a free and sovereign entity before and after the ratification of the Constitution.

"To deny this right [secession from the union] would be inconsistent with the principles on which our political systems are
founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."

"The foundation of a free government begins to be undermined when the freedom of speech on political subjects is restrained; it is destroyed when freedom of speech is wholly denied. " William Rawle, LL.D. Philadelphia, PA, 1825

[edbikerii]

Interesting article, Bob.  Just a reminder:  I'm not in favor of states seceding.

I think it is important to make the distinction between "settled law" and constitutional guarantees, however.  Of course we know that Lincoln was not in favor, but "settled law" is really nothing more than people agreeing to the interpretation.  The Supreme Court can render opinions, but they can only throw out new laws that are in violation of the Constitution, they cannot throw out the Constitution.

Also, it is fairly impractical for a state to secede without a standing army.  The National Guard (militia, etc.) was supposed to provide that function, but they are hardly a credible fighting force when pit against the greater US Armed Forces.

..the states are guaranteed that right in the Constitution.

How so?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

[BobbyR]

I do beleive the States should exercise more power within their borders. I do not feel that any State could stand on it's own. It could if everyone wanted to live like the 17th century.

The States united since they needed a common currency, common defense, foreign policy and Interstate commerce. Each State grants the others "full faith and credit" which is why my Drivers License and Veicle Registration is valid in all 50 States and I don't have to stop at each border.

Now, the Fed should not be able to withhold funds because a State does not agree with it's position. The State should sue the Fed for it's fair share.

Each State is unique and it's population has different needs. In Nevada and other wide open States, a mandated 55 Mph speed limit makes no sense. If a State feels that a certain plant has medicinal worth, they should have the right allow their citizens to use it under medical supervision.

I have a novel idea I have been kicking around. I pay all my income taxes to my State. The States then pay the Fed to run the Military, and other programs that are needed at a National level. Wanna see spending reform!!!!
  

[edbikerii]

I do beleive the States should exercise more power within their borders. I do not feel that any State could stand on it's own. It could if everyone wanted to live like the 17th century.

The States united since they needed a common currency, common defense, foreign policy and Interstate commerce. Each State grants the others "full faith and credit" which is why my Drivers License and Veicle Registration is valid in all 50 States and I don't have to stop at each border.

Now, the Fed should not be able to withhold funds because a State does not agree with it's position. The State should sue the Fed for it's fair share.

Each State is unique and it's population has different needs. In Nevada and other wide open States, a mandated 55 Mph speed limit makes no sense. If a State feels that a certain plant has medicinal worth, they should have the right allow their citizens to use it under medical supervision.

I have a novel idea I have been kicking around. I pay all my income taxes to my State. The States then pay the Fed to run the Military, and other programs that are needed at a National level. Wanna see spending reform!!!!
  

Interesting idea, as the locally elected representatives would have much greater control.  I guess the house of Reps is supposed to provide that function, but the truth is MOST AMERICANS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS.

[Uncle Ernie]

There ya go.  The American public -of which I am a member- is stoopit.  Thus- they would NEVER vote for someone who told the truth.  OR had a real plan.  (How's that hopey-changey thing going for ya?)  AS much as I hate to admit it- she's right. 

These days, I just like to sit at the grown ups table and listen.  If it wasn't so cold, we'd move to Canada.  Seriously. 
Anyway, just thought I'd mention the kids are listening.

[Gordon]

Now, the Fed should not be able to withhold funds because a State does not agree with it's position. The State should sue the Fed for it's fair share.

I couldn't agree more.  I get really tired of hearing how the federal government will withhold highway funds if a state doesn't enact a certain law that the federal government thinks should be put into place.  It's the playground mentality of "if you don't like my rules I'll take my ball and go home!".  Except in this case the person holding the ball doesn't actually own it.    

[andy750]

Its interesting to read that there are those of you who think so little of their country (the USA) and would rather live in isolation of the rest of the world -slef-governed states - you were born in the wrong century - go back in time and live in pre-Italy and their system of city-states. Sadly (for you) thats not the reality of the modern world.

Id like to know how Virginia (for example, but can apply to any other state) is going to be self sufficient economically? I used CA as an example but...that state currently has one of the largest deficits in the country (sorry Ed your plan of small businesses saving the state has no merit). So what you are saying is if you dont work for a small business or large corportation you dont deserve/get health care? Thats tough. Should the same principle apply to education? No of course not but you are happy to apply it to a basic human right -health care (provided by the goverment for its people). Crazy.

Someone mentioned Denmark...have you been to Denmark? Do you know how expensive it is to live there? High high taxes!! Is this what you want? 

 

  

[Grnrngr]

Each State grants the others "full faith and credit" which is why my Drivers License and Veicle Registration is valid in all 50 States and I don't have to stop at each border.  

Not entirely true, not sure if other states have it, but you ARE required to stop at the borders of CA to enter, it's an agricultural inspection, but if they did ever go police state on us....and there is some debate about whether any form of gun control, i.e. requiring a permit to own or carry a weapon, is constitutional or not, but legally, only a few states have reciprocity concerning concealed weapons permits. While you may be legal in your state, you may be an unknowing felon if you have a weapon in your trunk and you drive thru a state where that is "illegal", while on your way to the next state over where you're legal again, but a felony counts against you in all 50. Personally, I do not recognise the governments (state or fed) "right" to tell me I can or cannot carry a weapon, or what I can or cannot put into, or do with, my own body. I choose to usually live by the "law", mostly for the convenience of not getting hassled and the repercussions to be faced in the unfortunate event of being outside the law in the wrong place and time, whether the "law" is constitutional or not. I guess I gotta admit, at 55, my once exuberantly free spirit is becoming tamed. Probably comes from wearing a helmet all the time now        .....but if Cascadia ever decides to make a go of it, I'm there......   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_(independence_movement)      

[Inigo Montoya]

Denmark though has a healthcare system though. Yes you pay taxes to that but you know, the taxes in the US are not exactly low. My tax rate this year for fed was about 12-14%. Now tack on all the other taxes such as state and city as well as state income tax and medicare and social security and you have a significant amount coming out. Is it equal to other areas? Maybe not but there probably isn't as much difference as you might think.

AND I have to pay almost $500 a month for health insurance. Which probably offsets any extra amount I would pay in taxes.

[BobbyR]

Its interesting to read that there are those of you who think so little of their country (the USA) and would rather live in isolation of the rest of the world -slef-governed states - you were born in the wrong century - go back in time and live in pre-Italy and their system of city-states. Sadly (for you) thats not the reality of the modern world.

Id like to know how Virginia (for example, but can apply to any other state) is going to be self sufficient economically? I used CA as an example but...that state currently has one of the largest deficits in the country (sorry Ed your plan of small businesses saving the state has no merit). So what you are saying is if you dont work for a small business or large corportation you dont deserve/get health care? Thats tough. Should the same principle apply to education? No of course not but you are happy to apply it to a basic human right -health care (provided by the goverment for its people). Crazy.

Someone mentioned Denmark...have you been to Denmark? Do you know how expensive it is to live there? High high taxes!! Is this what you want? 

 

  

Andy, you are correct, there is no way the States could become totally autonomous. It is a nice idea to explore, but it will not happen. When I am up in MA, I am subject to the State laws which may differ from NY, because MA is different than NY.

I think you are looking at a people that are rethinking what the US was at it's inception, and what it is today. Having traveled as you have I am sure you have noticed that the US is not one homogenized place, which is the cool part. The States should know what is best for their unique cultures, and have wider latitude to govern their internal affairs-within Constitutional boundaries.  

When you try to force things down people's throats, they push back. We were taught that we were supposed to be rugged individualists as children. Our heroes were considered traitors back in England, and if we had lost the Rebellion, they would have been hanged. On one hand we were taught to resist authority and on the other to comply without question.

I think the economy is focusing people and having them re examine those institutions and individuals we trusted. I lived through the 1960s and it was a time of re examination and defiance. My generation started something and stopped short, we became what we despised most.

This heath care bill is a disgrace, it has been twisted around by special interests to a point that it will serve no one but those special interests. I was a big supporter and now I want it to go away. I want them to go back and come up with something fair and equitable, that will allow affordable care to be given to all. A real public option where Companies and individuals throw into the pot and draw down as needed.

This is a very important point in US history, it will be interesting to see which road we go down.  


    

[edbikerii]

Oh Andy.  You're always flying off the handle on the emotional stuff, Andy.  Slow down and use your head, man.  It doesn't matter how badly you want to give away health care.  In a perfect world we'd all be driving Ferraris and riding Ducatis, and they'd never break down.  Too bad that just ain't gonna happen.

Whoa!!!   Wait a minute!!!  Did you say, "provided by the government"?  Don't you mean "paid for by the taxpayer?"  NOTHING is "provided by the government" without the taxpayer paying more taxes.  Who's gonna pay all the tax money it would cost to have socialized medicine of any comparable quality to what we have now, if everybody is unemployed and on the dole?  Remember, 87% of us are now rating our system as GOOD or EXCELLENT according to Gallup.  That's a damned high bar to vault over, isn't it?  Oh, I forgot, Obama claims that Cap & Trade is going to pay for it.  Well, guess who pays for Cap & Trade?  The American taxpayer again!  Manufacturers get taxed, so they raise their prices to pay the taxes and keep their profit margins up, and the American consumer gets to pay more for their products.  American taxpayer gets screwed again!

Besides, once again, I posted two perfectly good alternatives to the socialized medicine plan, both of which COST THE TAXPAYER NOTHING.  Why didn't you read either one?  Why don't you tell us what faults you find in those plans, rather than just ignoring them?

...(sorry Ed your plan of small businesses saving the state has no merit). So what you are saying is if you dont work for a small business or large corportation you dont deserve/get health care? Thats tough. Should the same principle apply to education? No of course not but you are happy to apply it to a basic human right -health care (provided by the goverment for its people). Crazy.

Someone mentioned Denmark...have you been to Denmark? Do you know how expensive it is to live there? High high taxes!! Is this what you want? 

[edbikerii]

By the way, Obama calls small business "the engine for job growth" (yes, that's a quote).  Yet he proposes only $39 billion in interest-bearing loans to spur innovation for small businesses, and he only allocates 0.02% of the federal budget to the Small Business Administration?  Nonsense.

...(sorry Ed your plan of small businesses saving the state has no merit)...

[Grnrngr]

No of course not but you are happy to apply it to a basic human right -health care (provided by the goverment for its people).

Health care, provided by the government for it's people, has never been a "basic human right" even in the Communist/Socialist countries. Not ever, anywhere on the planet. Even in those countries where socialized medicine is practised, it is not considered, other than in political semantics, a "basic human right", but rather, a measure of a country's civility, or social standing, to be able to provide basic health care for those who cannot provide for themselves. You have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property (or the pursuit of happiness), the government does not exist, nor is required, to provide you with any of it, but exists solely to protect you from those who would deprive you of those rights, including the government itself. The US used to have the best health care service in the world, before there were "health care systems". The downfall of American healthcare began when insurance companies got involved in the first place and is actually a relatively recent (last 50/60yrs or so) occurance. And, you can bet yer back door, when "Health Care Reform" does happen, Insurance companies will be writing the rules. No, I will not accept a system that tells me I am REQUIRED to purchase insurance. I have an inalienable right to NO health care if I choose.

[BeSeeingYou]

So Im a little confused...is this thread about nulification of laws you dont like or about secession from the United States?

one may lead to another should the Federal Government seek to enforce a law that has been nullified by a State. That's why I don't seem to be able to separate one from the other.

If its the latter then do you really think a state can survive on its own economically speaking? Where do you see the US militarily in all this? Presumably the US militarily is there to defend the country of the USA. Not a single state. On a wider note if a single state seceded and it spread such that there were no longer 50 states but say only 20 states how would you compete internationally? Or dont you care that you would lose your superpower status? I think its a pipe dream  

Yes, I think a State can survive on it's own economically. The seceding State would be responsible for it's own defense. That's okay with me. Is it necessary to compete internationally if "the people" of the seceding State are okay with providing for themselves and their own happiness? Denmark comes to mind for some reason. No I don't care about superpower status. Might be a pipe dream.

As for the original point:
"Here in Virginia a bill has or is being introduced to nullify the effects of a National Health Care act should it pass
and seem detrimental to Virginians. "

What is the alternative being proposed for all the uninsured? There is a reason why they are uninsured. Not making much progress by nullifying new laws....so?

The idea here is that the Federal can not make the citizen of a sovereign State buy into the Federal program. I'd like to see other things nullified as well, say, social security and federal income tax, both of which are unconstitutional.

    Well, maybe a few states might be able to survive on their own.  This is an interesting little document.  It covered from 1981-2005 and was the latest one I found.  The amounts usually varied by 10% or less over a 5 year period so while the figures may not be exact they should be close.    As we look at the per-capita tax burden and we see a some states don't really pay their fair share. They have the lowest taxes but receive the most federal dollars.   Maybe secession would not be a bad thing for these states.  It would relieve the rest of us of a giant "welfare" load.  Another interesting thing is a vast majority of the states who don't pay their fair share are "red" states, ones that vote Republican.  I guess we could call them Republican voters on welfare.  So Rocking M where are you at?  Can your state stand on it's own?  Maybe the states that pay their way could nullify laws that take their tax dollars and give them away to other states?
Now this is all a bit tongue in cheek as I think the whole secession argument is such a big fat load that it is laughable.

These documents are compiled from information from the Commerce Dept and the Census Bureau

[Achmed]

There is a large apportionment to the midwest and south in the form of agricultural subsidies. These subsidies should probably be reduced or eliminated, but there is the whole issue of the U.S. being addicted to high fructose corn syrup, which mainly comes from these states. Do you want your syrup from elsewhere? It's also in all the meat we eat! Fed on corn, even though it doesn't produce meat comparable to grass-based feeds. Probably a lot of it already is sourced worldwide.

[mlinder]

Corn is bad.

Tastes good, but is bad.



I'm drinking beer. No corn in beer.

[Achmed]

I don't really much care for corn, either. Corn tortillas and tamales are good. I have a hard time digesting whole kernels, though. Isn't that a good sign I'm not getting a lot from it? Beer is definitely the way to go. But not corn beer. They already make rice beer, sh!t!

[Pinhead]

I don't think the goal of these "resolutions" is to provide a reason for secession. They're for the obvious reasons that different states, regions, and even cities, need different types of laws due to the different types of people that live there (yes, people across the nation are different, regionally). And also to nullify blatantly unconstitutional laws.

For instance, my home state of Kansas doesn't really need all of the gun federal gun control mostly due to the rural nature of the state (other than the KC area). Nullifying such federal gun control laws such as the NFA and allowing Kansans to manufacture their own weapons would in itself create jobs (I'd personally go into business making silencers). Eliminating the $200 BATFE tax on such items makes them much more accessible as well.

FWIW, Kansas is considering a constitutional amendment that would allow Kansans to partake in federal heal care if they so choose, but would eliminate the feds being able to force it onto us.

[andy750]

Oh Andy.  You're always flying off the handle on the emotional stuff, Andy.  Slow down and use your head, man.  It doesn't matter how badly you want to give away health care.  In a perfect world we'd all be driving Ferraris and riding Ducatis, and they'd never break down.  Too bad that just ain't gonna happen.

Im not sure where you got this idea from but in this instance I was being very un-emotional about it and was simply asking some questions. No hidden meaning just opening a discussion which has been interesting. I read your links (thanks as always) but this particular thread is about secession and nullification so I was trying to stay on topic. Thanks in any case.