If We Let The Secessionists Go, What Would Their 'Nation' Be Like?

How does that saying go.... not all conservatives are white supremacists, but all white supremacists are conservatives.....

 

The problem is that you already came up with a legitimate way for compromise, cooperation, and consensus - Article V.

Ignoring the constitution has led you into far more wars than following it would have. The problem with 'just being human', is that the power to do good under such a system is also the power to do harm. Good men have not always controlled the government. To tyrants the constitution is irrelevant, for example, Woodrow Wilson, "The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit…." - but it at least constrains their behavior. Wilson's presidency would have been vastly more abhorrent if you had a unitary state with an unwritten constitution.

That's all the constitution is, ultimately - an attitude. It's an attitude people have toward abuses of power. It has few/no enforcement powers in itself, other than the restraining power of those who believe in it.

[hr][/hr]

Your founders (principally Jefferson and Madison) realized the problem you pointed out above, and tried to advocate a decentralized method of constitutional interpretation via states nullification and secession where required, in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Unfortunately, by that point the dust had already settled, and Federalist opposition gave all interpretation power to the central government in 1803.

 

And there you have it. You don't know. Nor did the poster who made the original claim. But he was more than happy to state it as if it were fact.

Additionally, the poster didn't specifiy "online conservatives", if that would make any difference. And I have never read white supremacism into the "makers and takers" meme. I have not heard race associated with that at all. But maybe that's it. A conservative says something with no racial meaning whatsoever, liberal then associates racial meaning, and calls the conservative a racist. Perhaps when brtblutwo said that most conservatives were white supremacists, what he actually meant was that he projected racist overtones onto over 50% of what conservatives say.

As a conservative, I would hope that all races would support a limited government of enumerated powers, bound by the constitution, subservient to the people.

 

Who cares? But I suggest we build a very tall fence.

 

All laws are constitutioonal until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. That is their central authority.

 

Interesting. I surely don't have any answers that I think would apply for ALL time... but I'm certain that as long as people have an attitude biased toward working things out together... the nation will survive. The other option (which someone always seems to want), is WAR.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed and of course!!

Some odd number of people claiming (on the internet, for example) doesn't determine the constitutionality of any given law. It's that clear.

 

What are the latest estimates of the number of citizens that advocate secession? Are all of them right wingers? If not, what percentage are right wingers? Is this number large enough for you to even entertain this hypothetical situation?

 

Correct. That is one major reason there is a mandated cohesiveness or consistency of laws in this society. Each State is not absolutely 'free' to do anything it wants, they must conform in many cases to Federal dictates. Some may WANT more freedoms (and ongoing issue), but it is not the case that they absolutely have the autonomy many claim. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in such crises or conflicts.

 

In today's reality, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final decider of constitutionality of laws.

 

The aforementioned gentlemen thought otherwise, and constitutionally, they are correct.

Your argument may pass muster if the SCOTUS passed judgement on each law the Congress passed, which they don't, and a fact the Congress takes license to pass what they know to be unconstitutional based on that simple fact.

 

The right to secession doesn't exist, never has, never could. And the Civil War already settled this question.

 

Time can change anything.

 

Amen!!

And it's interesting, that those with truly oppressive mindsets do not typically see themselves sporting the same.

 

It would probably look something like this:

http://www.blueridgelibertyproject.com/index.html

Peaceful people who value non-aggression, education, community and make no claims to your body or your life. Or, for a lot of the people on this forum...pure hell.

 

As long as you keep the gun peddlers and worshipers out... it might be okay.

 

How do you mean?

 

If people are of goodwill and their goals are (and remain) helping others, then that community will likely be okay. But as soon as you get too many violent jerks with firearms in there... watch out.

As it is, America as a whole needs to clean-up the weapon and violent jerks.

 

Their community is based on the non-aggression principle so why would "violent jerks" want to be a part of that? By the way, those peaceful people in that link are armed...and oddly enough there have been no murders or wanton violence. Amazing, isn't it? Well, not really so much amazing as it is as to be expected since their's is not a system based on arbitrary rules enforced with violence like the system that the rest of us live in.

If you think about it, from their perspective you may very well look like the violent jerk...

 

Principles sound awesome; still there are humans to deal with. Not a bad thing, but definitely something to consider.

 

Well they've put the principles into practice and are having great success. The proof is in the pudding.

 

Let's see how long the "pudding" lasts.

 

Yes, let's. Has anyone ever told you that you come off as a bit of a pessimist? What has happened in your life that makes you always look to the worst in humans? Why is a community based on the concept of self-ownership and non-aggression so far fetched in your mind.

 

Indeed.

 

It's pretty interesting you say that, seeing how this forum is chock full of pessimistic people who like to find the worst in black people and this president, but you chose to call out Jon-c....

Seems a little biased based upon his political affiliation.....

I jus sayin....

 

Why do you do that? My post consisted of four sentences, two of which were direct questions posed to you, yet you chose to only quote the first two words of the post and ignore the rest. Why?