BRUNO BEHRAND WRITES:
I liked the 3D map. Regardless, I was toying with the idea of discussingthe left's silly secession talk in a more serious manner. (serious from ascenario Point of View)Why not let the "blue Archipelago" secede? Not in a warlike manner, but ina negotiated settlement.1. Open borders and immigration for tourism & work.2. They keep their Federal tax dollars and do with it what they will3. The USA receives payment for joint defense4. They can place tolls on trade through their ports5. They become financially responsible for all their social pathologies &troubled population6. They get the 9th circuit and their own constitution.Tens of millions of liberal votes immediately lopped off the country.Let them see how their ideas play out, and we do the same.It's the reimposition of "federalism" by other means. It would take about2-5 years for both sides to decide "reunification" was in both ourinterests.
I began arguing for support of West Coast secession about 9 years ago now. I personally feel that it would be the first step to a return to federalism on multiple levels. First, we need a practical method for stopping judicial abuse of the constitution. I believe secession, gives us that in a practical methodology to hold the courts accountable for their actions. Secondly, I believe that states should be responsible for almost all spending and taxation, and I think that secession talk would redirect spending to more local levels.
I have always seen two BIG problems however, citizenry and existing debt. Does a person lose their U.S. Citizenship immediately because they happen to live along the west coast, or is there a 3 year joint citizenship to allow for job search and relocation. As far as existing debt goes, is the remainder of the nation stuck with all existing debt, though some if not much was spent on pork barreled legislation for these states?
In addition to my 2 problems, there are also issues of tolls and tariffs on our ports (even if land ports) from their nation, and the issue of how a joint defense would work.
Just my thoughts,
Kevin J. Bowman
GARY KARLIN WRITES:
I can appreciate your frustration, but our country was through this beforesome time ago, called the civil war. Even though it is a political war,well, I firmly believe more of we conservatives need to be taking back thecountry from the liberals or before it slips out of our control, however youwant to percieve it at this point. I still think that we have control forthe most part, but caution is advised because of all these liberal rulingsthat are coming out of California.It is discouraging, and unfortunately I don't have much influence out inCalifornia; however, being active in IL GOP and Cook County GOP and my localward organization makes me feel better about fighting the good fight.
ANDRE TRAVERSA REPLIES:
We don't have to have a civil war; secession can be voluntary.
I ADD DETAIL TO ANDRE'S MESSAGE:
The problem with citing the Civil War is that it was not a result of secession, but instead it was the result of preventing secession. It was also the end of the federal republic. I know I will anger some people saying this here, but I am going forward anyway. The Civil War is the birth of our current liberal state because it resulted in a transition from a federal republic to a national democracy.
Look at the Amendments passed in the wake of the Civil War (ended 1865)
14th Amendment (1866)– Eliminated property ownership as a responsibility of voters and based voting on age alone.
15th Amendment (1869) – Centralized citizenship from a state responsibility to a national responsibility.
16th Amendment (1909) – Centralized ability of national government to levy taxes on all sources of income.
17th Amendment (1912) – Election of senators transfer from State Legislator to general population
Within 50 years this country was no longer a republic of states, it was a national democracy.
Allowing secession gives us the framework, as lovers of social and economic liberty, to reverse the tide, by undoing the Spirit of nationalism that the mandatory statehood resulted in. A nation without a working framework for secession, has no possibility of holding the national government liable.
Do not get me wrong, I love this country, all 50 states of it, as it exists today. That does not mean I condone the methods and resulting consequences of those methods that were used to maintain the union. I believe a free republic, the way our founding fathers saw it, would persevere in the long run if we allowed states the ability to test the waters outside of a national framework.
I will include more as the conversation continues.
Messages edited to prevent publication of private email addresses
Post a Comment