Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,188
    vCash
    1500

    Ron Paul on Secession

    Politico

    Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those ‘traitors’ became our country’s greatest patriots,


    “If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.”
    So, in his mind, secession is an American value. Elections, winning the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens is what I call an American value. We have elections on a federal level every two years (HoR) and presidential every four years. It seems that Ron Paul has lost a sense of history, when he forgets that the 13 Colonies "secession" was because they did not get to participate in the elections of the House of Commons, a completely different circumstance.

    I find this position, to be charitable, misguided.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,370
    vCash
    1500
    Secession is a fancy way of saying quitting.
    Last edited by dbroncos78087; 11-21-2012 at 09:45 PM.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,193
    vCash
    1500
    I'm torn on this. People should always look to see what benefits the majority of people. But humans in general have some very big problems to overcome, and division amonst the earth's superpower could be very damning.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,456
    vCash
    1500
    If a state or states truly felt that the US no longer had the best interests of its people then I don't think secession is unreasonable. I don't think this is a decision to be made by a few politicians but by an overwhelming majority of its people. The potential consequences to a state or states would probably be too great for it to be a feasible option unless it was a large bloc of states. Of course there is a precedent for forcibly keeping the union together.

    Maybe I'm being naive but I sometimes wonder if two (or three or four) smaller countries would have been a better way to divide the current US. While it would have diminished our ability to be a single force for meeting the challenges of WWI, WWII and the Cold War, it would also make us less unwieldy in adapting to the needs of the people. What if Lincoln let the South leave?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,188
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    If a state or states truly felt that the US no longer had the best interests of its people then I don't think secession is unreasonable. I don't think this is a decision to be made by a few politicians but by an overwhelming majority of its people. The potential consequences to a state or states would probably be too great for it to be a feasible option unless it was a large bloc of states. Of course there is a precedent for forcibly keeping the union together.

    Maybe I'm being naive but I sometimes wonder if two (or three or four) smaller countries would have been a better way to divide the current US. While it would have diminished our ability to be a single force for meeting the challenges of WWI, WWII and the Cold War, it would also make us less unwieldy in adapting to the needs of the people. What if Lincoln let the South leave?
    Then New Orleans would not exist. Galveston would not exist. Whole swaths of Florida would not exist. We would not have landed on the moon, nor would they have landed on the moon, with all of the benefits that we have as a society from that research. I could go on, but, the point is, as a nation, we are more than the sum of our parts. As smaller units, we all would be less.

    Naive is not the the correct term, but, a lack of understanding on how we are all interdependent would be more correct.

    This entire topic shows that Ron Paul for all his talk, seems to have less of an understanding of how our republic actually works. Because we are not this mish mash of smaller countries, we are far better off. Talk of secession is nothing more nor less than a child pouting because the election did not go the way they wanted! It is the epitome of unpatriotic, and wrapping oneself in a false history is disgusting (referring to Paul, not you).
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,456
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Then New Orleans would not exist. Galveston would not exist. Whole swaths of Florida would not exist. We would not have landed on the moon, nor would they have landed on the moon, with all of the benefits that we have as a society from that research. I could go on, but, the point is, as a nation, we are more than the sum of our parts. As smaller units, we all would be less.

    Naive is not the the correct term, but, a lack of understanding on how we are all interdependent would be more correct.

    This entire topic shows that Ron Paul for all his talk, seems to have less of an understanding of how our republic actually works. Because we are not this mish mash of smaller countries, we are far better off. Talk of secession is nothing more nor less than a child pouting because the election did not go the way they wanted! It is the epitome of unpatriotic, and wrapping oneself in a false history is disgusting (referring to Paul, not you).
    I think assuming that smaller countries could not be at least as effective as one US is where I think you may be wrong.

    First off, size doesn't matter. A northern US would still be significantly larger than Britain which managed to rule a sizeable part of the globe from one small island.

    Secondly, smaller separate countries would have functioned differently but could have worked together to tackle issues where they had a common interest (like Europe).

    Third, our size can make getting anything done extremely difficult. A true democracy of 535 people coming from thousands of miles away would be hard presses to find consensus on most issues. Our representative democracy is essentially asking that we decide our federal law in that manner.

    You are certainly entitled to your views but I think you are overselling the advantages of being a democracy of 300 million people.

    And I'm sure Ron Paul is not speaking as a sore loser but as a strong state's rights advocate.

    Either way, this is only a thought.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    Thanks for bringing everyone together, Ronny.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    3,043
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Then New Orleans would not exist. Galveston would not exist. Whole swaths of Florida would not exist. We would not have landed on the moon, nor would they have landed on the moon, with all of the benefits that we have as a society from that research. I could go on, but, the point is, as a nation, we are more than the sum of our parts. As smaller units, we all would be less.

    Naive is not the the correct term, but, a lack of understanding on how we are all interdependent would be more correct.

    This entire topic shows that Ron Paul for all his talk, seems to have less of an understanding of how our republic actually works. Because we are not this mish mash of smaller countries, we are far better off. Talk of secession is nothing more nor less than a child pouting because the election did not go the way they wanted! It is the epitome of unpatriotic, and wrapping oneself in a false history is disgusting (referring to Paul, not you).
    You lost me there

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,038
    vCash
    1500
    I don't know Cab We have had secession twice in a little over 200 years. Twice is kind of a lot in such a short time. I think the quote is being misrepresented a bit also. I think he's meaning secession from England and that would be deeply rooted. I agree it's a silly concept now though.


    Come to psd where admitted dupes who do nothing but troll the gd and fs forum are free. But man don't you dare mention trolling on someone's wall.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,586
    vCash
    1500
    I think the negative view of secession is overblown. If a state doesn't want to be part of the union any more, why not let them leave?

    But my biggest problem with Ron Paul's philosophy, is that he seems to care more about the freedom of individual state governments than the freedom of individuals.
    Last edited by gcoll; 11-22-2012 at 10:21 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,926
    vCash
    1500
    This is not the traditional America anymore. I don't blame people that want to leave.
    Last edited by Longhornfan1234; 11-22-2012 at 10:32 AM.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by justinnum1
    Wade will be a lot better next season now that he got knee surgery. Hate on. - 7/31/2012

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Arvada, Colorado
    Posts
    17,609
    vCash
    500
    I'm cool with it. Go in the ocean for all I care.
    You're talking to me all wrong... It's the wrong tone. You do it again and I'll stab you in the face with a soldering iron. Hey, tell me, does your mother sew? BOOM. Get her to sew that!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    14,839
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I think the negative view of secession is overblown. If a state doesn't want to be part of the union any more, why not let them leave?

    But my biggest problem with Ron Paul's philosophy, is that he seems to care more about the freedom of individual state governments than the freedom of individuals.
    I can assure you that's not the case...

    Ron Paul subscribes to the idea the individual is more powerful than anything else. I think the states are taking center stage in his arguments because he's really trying to harp home the power the states should have over the federal government.

    He subscribes to the Thomas Jefferson ideal that the states should have more power than the fed, the districts should have more power than the states, the towns should have more power than the districts, and the people should have more power than the towns.

    Top down decentralization of power... I think he's harping on the states because it's the best way to frame the argument with the country currently structured the way it is.

    In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw."
    The real question is whether or not secession is still recognized or if the implied right to do so was abolished with the ending of the Civl War.

    And just to be clear, Ron Paul has not and will not advocate secession and I've got a video link to prove that. The reason Ron Paul is still making a stink about this is because he wants people to recognize that the right still exists even if he doesn't think it should be used.

    What Ron Paul would like to see is massive amounts of State Nullifications which I actually think would be much more likely and much more effective.

    What is it?

    State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

    Says Who?

    Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

    But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

    What’s the Argument for It?

    Here’s an extremely basic summary:

    1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

    2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

    3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.

    Why Do We Need It?

    As Jefferson warned, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. In his Report of 1800, Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

    Isn’t This Ancient History?

    Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere.

    What’s more, we’ve tried everything else. Nothing seems able to stop Leviathan’s relentless march. We need to have recourse to every mechanism of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to us, not just the ones that won’t offend Katie Couric or MSNBC.

    Doesn’t Nullification Violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause?

    Thomas Jefferson knew about the Supremacy Clause, it’s safe to assume. The Supremacy Clause applies to constitutional laws, not unconstitutional ones. For a full reply to this objection, see Professor Brion McClanahan.

    Isn’t This Just a Smokescreen for Slavery?

    Nullification was never used on behalf of slavery. As I show in Nullification, it was used against slavery, which is why South Carolina’s secession document cites it as a grievance justifying southern secession, and Jefferson Davis denounced it in his farewell address to the Senate. Thus Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, backed up by the state legislature, declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional (the mere existence of the fugitive-slave clause in the Constitution did not, in its view, suffice to make all the odious provisions of that act constitutionally legitimate). In Ableman v. Booth (1859), the Supreme Court scolded it for doing so. In other words, modern anti-nullification jurisprudence has its roots in the Supreme Court’s declarations in support of the Fugitive Slave Act. Who’s defending slavery here?

    How Can I Learn More?

    The indispensable source for developments connected to nullification and the Tenth Amendment is TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Its Legislative Tracking page covers a variety of nullification initiatives and tracks their progress in state legislatures across the country.

    My new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, makes the historical, constitutional, and moral case for nullification. Read a free chapter.

    Be sure to read my essay “Nullification: Answering the Objections.”

    And check out what happens when a Princeton professor shoots off his mouth on nullification without knowing anything about the subject.

    Nullification is an important defense mechanism for a free people, with deep roots in American history – albeit American history no one is taught in school. Learn more about it, and join the cause.
    http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

    Videos and Links are on the page.
    Last edited by whitesoxfan83; 11-22-2012 at 12:03 PM.
    Son, you just don't get it, i'm talking bout TWTW!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,370
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Longhornfan1234 View Post
    This is not the traditional America anymore. I don't blame people that want to leave.
    This traditional America died in about 1800. It died again about 1830 and about every 30 years later until the end of our country. 2010 is in line with my 30 year mark.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,381
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Secession is a fancy way of saying quitting.
    Lol..Oh yeah, that's quitting.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •