God Bless Texas !!!! Sovereign State.

[FloridaConfederate]

Ahhhhh the good ole 10th...history does indeed repeat itself.

Sovereign State.

How many states is that now ?

Interesting times which no doubt will get more interesting.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

Last Action: 02/17/2009 H Filed

Bill HCR 50


Caption Version: Introduced
Caption Text: Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.

Author: Creighton | Hughes | Berman

Coauthor: Davis, John | Legler | Taylor

Subjects: Intergovernmental Relations (I0447)
Resolutions––Legislative Policy (I0685)
Resolutions––Memorializing Congress (I0675)



Actions: (descending date order)
Description Comment Date Time Journal Page
H Filed 02/17/2009

[sbl]

Say Chris, why is it that story only shows up in "Opinion" pages and "conservative" sites?

[FloridaConfederate]

Say Chris, why is it that story only shows up in "Opinion" pages and "conservative" sites?

Not true.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HCR50

Thanks for playing another round of attack the source not the issue.

3 more tries for a dollar ?


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[FloridaConfederate]

Give it up for the Live Free or Die Boys


NH lawmaker wants to reaffirm state sovereignty

February 22, 2009


CONCORD, N.H.—A Fremont lawmaker wants to put the federal government on notice that New Hampshire will not stand for legislation that steps outside Congress's clearly limited role.

Republican Rep. Dan Itse was preparing for a Constitution Day celebration this summer when he came across the Kentucky Resolution, a repudiation of federal overreaching written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798. He used it as the basis for a resolution reasserting New Hampshire's sovereignty, and has been amazed to see other states follow his lead.

The National Conference of State Legislatures counts at least 10 states that have introduced bills to push back against Congressional authority. Some were inspired by Itse.

"I never expected this kind of attention," he said. "I've put in other things and they've just died an ignominious death. And this one has just taken on a life of its own."

Sen. Randy Brogdon of Oklahoma, the sponsor of a similar resolution in his state, described Itse's bill as "poetic." His resolution passed the House last week and Brogdon predicted it would pass in the Senate as well.

"If we're going to take back our nation ... we're going to do it state by state," he said.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

Sources son, sources. I would expect it would be in the state legislature page. Even a "conservative" commentator in Australia is pushing this one. We'll see if all the states pass them or treat them like Arbor Day resolutions.

[sbl]

Voting on Congression Authority is one thing. Some of the "opinion sites" act like it's sessession and appealing to the usual "base."

[FloridaConfederate]

State Sovereignty Update
Written by Dave Nalle
Published February 17, 2009



Now that most of the state legislatures are back in session, we're starting to see some progress on the passage of state sovereignty bills. It looks like at least 22 states have bills in some stage of development. About half are in the process of being drafted, several are in committee or out for debate, and the pack is being led by Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire, where the bills have strong support and will likely be voted on within a matter of weeks. As yet none have passed into law, but we may see that happen in some of the most active states fairly quickly.

The Arizona bill is interesting because it actually cites New York v. US in the text of the bill, pointing out one of the 10th Amendment cases which is often cited in arguments for state nullification of federal mandates. It seems to have a lot of support and a realistic chance of passage.

Oklahoma's sovereignty bill, which passed their House last session but got stalled in the Senate, came out of the rules committee last week with unanimous support and should move forward quickly. It may run into problems in the state Senate again because that body is more evenly split between Democrats and Republicans than is their House of Representatives.

As demonstrated in the recently introduced Michigan resolution some of the bills target a much more specific threat. Michigan's bill asserts 10th Amendment rights, but does it in the context of reiterating and guaranteeing protection of the right of the citizens to own firearms, taking a stand against possible gun seizures from the federal government. The Montana resolution was introduced at the same time and is largely the same with the same focus on gun rights.

State Representative Dan Itse, author of the New Hampshire sovereignty resolution, appeared on the Glenn Beck show on Fox News over the weekend to explain the bill. Although New Hampshire's bill is one of the most radical, Itse stressed that it was not about secession from the union, but about reasserting state control, saying, "This isn't about withdrawing from the union. The happiest resolution of this resolution would be a renewed union within the confines of the Constitution."

But he went on to make the key distinction that the New Hampshire bill actually makes the claim, based on the writings of Jefferson and Madison, that if the government fails to obey the Constitution then it has effectively negated itself and dissolved the union formed by that document. Itse said, "If the general government nullifies the Constitution, how do you withdraw from something which does not exist?"

Oklahoma State Representative Jason Murphey wrote an editorial for the Edmond Sun explaining his state's sovereignty bill and linking it specifically to the unfunded mandates and massive spending in the so-called stimulus bill, linking this issue to the efforts of some governors to block federal spending within their states. He notes that it is "is going to be important for the state to refuse to participate in new inappropriate federal programs such as the apparent expansion of the welfare program included in the stimulus bill." He also expresses the widespread concern that much of the money in the stimulus is intended to benefit the Democratic Party's political allies, pointing out that "we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN — the possible recipient of $2 billion because of the stimulus bill."

A lot of crazy claims about the sovereignty movement are still circulating, many of them seemingly generated by Ron Paul supporters involved in his Campaign for Liberty to advance their own interests. But the truth is that, contrary to their assertions, this is not a movement for secession from the union, and the sovereignty bills are generally not arising out of grassroots efforts from far-right groups like C4L.

Rather, these resolutions are originating from inside legislatures and from established state politicians, specifically in response to concerns about unfunded mandates and excessive burdens placed on the states by the federal government. The expense and partisan character of many of the elements of the stimulus bill is increasing concern and helping to motivate legislators to pass these state resolutions as are federal efforts to limit the constitutional rights of individuals on a nationwide basis. While the 10th Amendment is central to their argument, legislators are more concerned about retaining power they see being gradually eroded by the federal government than more abstract issues of Constitutional rights.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[FloridaConfederate]

Scott save your keystrokes its been a month and States, 22 and growing, have passed or contemplating resolutions attesting soveriiegnity.

There is no amount of liberal talking points which will change that or make it seem what it is not.

Please come to Florida with your forces led by Sean Penn during the revolution.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

Extremists Undermine State Sovereignty Movement
Written by Dave Nalle
Published February 18, 2009


"There was nothing else on the radio late last night so I found myself listening to George Noory on Coast to Coast AM while driving home in the fog. I was pleasantly surprised that he was discussing the state sovereignty movement and the efforts of states to assert their rights under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Much to my dismay he was discussing this serious topic with two clowns — Alex Jones and Jerome Corsi."

(You can read the rest here....)

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/18/093608.php

"You're known by the company you keep, and if people like Jones and Corsi continue to be identified with state sovereignty it's going to lose credibility and the broad support it needs to succeed. People will just write it off as another rant from the lunatic fringe and move on. Jones and Corsi should go back to selling videos they produce in their basements to people who store survival rations in their beards and leave serious issues free of the taint of their clownishness."

And that's the issue. Who is being attracted to this movement and taking it for secession and what characters are profiting from it.

[sbl]

Scott save your keystrokes its been a month and States, 22 and growing, have passed or contemplating resolutions attesting soveriiegnity.

There is no amount of liberal talking points which will change that or make it seem what it is not.

Please come to Florida with your forces led by Sean Penn during the revolution.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida


I'll be resting my case here.

[hanktrent]

It's a funny coincidence that on another reenacting list, we were just discussing the legislative attempts by individual states to impede the federal Fugitive Slave Act. The 1860 Democratic platform even said:

6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. Source (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dem1860.asp)

Some ways that individual states tried to get around the federal law are noted here (http://books.google.com/books?id=SXmmrinJewEC&pg=PA107&output=html).

It's ironic that for all the talk of states rights, southern Democrats in the 1860s supported federal intervention in state business, when it benefitted them by getting their property returned.

That doesn't have anything to do with the modern legislation, but it just struck me as something I hadn't really thought about before.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[bob 125th nysvi]

anything they want.

Doesn't mean diddly squat if the Supreme Court tells them no.

A battle long lost and grandstanding in its finest tradition.

Now only if the legislators would actually do SOMETHING they were elected to do, like I don't know, cut spending and lower taxes. Or maybe raise educational standards?

Something, anything?

Or is that too difficult for them?

[tompritchett]

Moderator Hat: Again this is a modern political topic that I will allow. I am allowing it because it parallels the sentiments that arose in the South in the years leading up to the Civil War even though the reasons for todays sentiments are not fully in line with the sentiments in pre-Civil War years. I think that watching this movement and the discussions both pro and con might offer us some additional insight into that time period and the emotions that ultimately tore this nation apart.

[plankmaker]

This area tried forming its own State about 225 years ago. Seems like even back then, the folks in charge kind of ignored this area. There have ben rumbling from several counties in NW NC, NE TN, and SW VA to try this again. It might work this time as the people in Charlotte, Nashville, and Richmond don't seem to realize we exist.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

State of Franklin

Sullivan,Washington, Greene,
& Davidson County, Tennessee


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The State of Franklin was set up in 1784 out of the westerly portion of the colonial state of North Carolina. Shortly after the War of Independence the original colonies were asked to pay for the war efforts and create a country with a sound financial policy. Since the taxing the population was difficult and cash was in short supply North Carolina ceded the western portion of the state to the federal coffers. Before the Congress could accept the offer North Carolina withdrew the offer. The citizens of the region decided that federal rule in the meantime was probably a good idea since North Carolina as a state had given this remote region little support in its fight with the Indians or protection from criminal refugees. They saw other benefits as an independent state in terms of taxation, representation and an understanding attitude toward local problems. Representatives of the North Carolina counties of Sullivan, Washington, Greene, and Davidson accepted the offer of cessation to federal territory. The state of Franklin existed for only four years to finally merge with the new state of Tennessee.

This region is centered geographically around the valleys created by the Holston and Clinch Rivers in the Cumberland and Appalachian mountains. This rugged territory was a refuge for the frontier type before and shortly after the War of Independence. It includes the towns of Knoxville, Bristol, and Greenville, Tennessee. Near Greenville is the birth place of Davy Crockett with Bristol on the Virginia border as one of the gateway cities into the western territory.

A convention of delegates (except for Davidson County that sent none) met on August 23, 1784 and after intense debate they declared these western counties independent of North Carolina on a unanimous vote. The statehood vote, however, was by no means unanimous with John Tipton leading a minority position.

Several names were offered for the new state. The name Frankland was proposed since it was translatable as "the Land of the Free," however, Franklin was decided upon perhaps for gaining the favor of Benjamin Franklin. John Sevier was elected Governor. The convention set the salary of the governor at two hundred pounds per annum, the supreme judges at one hundred and fifty pounds per annum. There were some interesting regulations created in the new constitution. One set the prices for goods traded and another to set the standard for office holders. Office holders could not be any person "if he were immoral, a Sabbath breaker, a clergyman, a doctor or a lawyer."

Unfortunately Benjamin Franklin was not terribly supportive of his namesake state. When solicited by John Sevier for help Franklin wrote,

"I am sensible of the honor which your Excellencey and your council do me. but being in Europe when your State was formed I am too little acquainted with the circumstances to be able to offer you anything just now that may be of importance, since everything material that regards your welfare will doubtless have occurred to yourselves. "
He concludes with a statesman like paragraph. I will endeavor to inform myself more perfectly of your affairs by inquiry and searching the records of Congress and if anything should occur to me that I think may be useful to you, you shall hear from me thereupon."
(Franklin's letter to Governor John Sevier, 1787)
North Carolina tried to break up the cession and statehood plans of the people of Franklin since the North Carolina had no real intention of releasing this territory. John Tipton, leader of the opposition within Franklin, had been responsible for carrying out court judgment orders to seize the property of the then Governor John Sevier, including nearly all his slaves. Sevier put together a small army of one hundred and fifty men and marched on John Tipton's estate to get back the property and perhaps to seize Tipton himself. After a brief siege and a consolidation of Col. George Maxwell's forces with Tipton's; Sevier's band was routed with the capture of several including two of Sevier's sons. Meanwhile Sevier went on a bold raiding campaign against Indian settlements in the western sections of now Tennessee. When he returns to Franklin he is captured by Tipton's men and taken to trial. Sevier makes a bold escape at his trial through a second story window onto a waiting horse.
North Carolina regains control of the region in 1788 by pardoning its leaders. Sevier eventually learns through all these travails, the manners and fallacies of government. He is elected as a Senator in North Carolina. In 1789 North Carolina ceded again the region in the west and Franklin became part of Eastern Tennessee in 1796. John Sevier becomes the first Governor of the new state of Tennessee.

Several of my relatives were here during all the governmental changes and show up in documents in all three borderings states due to the changing perimeters. Look for the names of Abraham Grubb, Stoffel(or Stophel), Varnell, and Weathers. They do not show up in the history books and tended to be the very quintessential of the frontiersman or mountain men, staying by the themselves and maintaining their independent lives against natural and unnatural adversity.

source:

Historic Sullivan County, Tennessee, p. 109-113
World Book Encyclopedia, World Book Inc. Chicago

[Pete K]

Can I join the Constiutioal Union Party?
John Bell '60

[Regular3]

We'll see if all the states pass them or treat them like Arbor Day resolutions.All the states can pass them if they want to, but they'll have as much force as Arbor Day resolutions:

Article VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

I love it when latter-day States' Righters and Secessionists wave the 10th Amendment and try to act like it somehow supercedes Article VI of the original document.

[FloridaConfederate]

Counsel for and the duly elected representatives in more than one State (a good majority of which are typically barristers by profession) seem to disagree with your Constitutional interpretation.

I think two more States were voting today.

Will you be falling in to force their hand and put forth Federal will by strong arm ? Sean Penn and SBL are forming a company.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[FloridaConfederate]

Tennessee is in ! Go Vols !


http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0108

*HJR 0108 by *Lynn
Memorials, Congress - Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee's sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution. -

[sbl]

Don't let the pine trees hit you where the good Lord split you..

http://www.castanet.net/content/1183818660%20BC.jpg

[FloridaConfederate]

Unprecedented since 1860-61

http://www.mrstep.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us_states_claim_sov_27.gif


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Cove Rebel]

These times can be shockingly familiar when you look at history. While we joke and make fun or ridicule opposing opinions, surely we must all realize that these small, seemingly insignificant measures could at some point boil over and get out of control bringing about a 'line in the sand' similar to the 1860s. The issues may/may not be the same, but the end results could be virtually identical and equally disasterous.

We all think it cannot happen. We think it would be extreme. We think we are all too well informed. We think level heads will prevail. But I am sure those who lived through it back then would have said the same thing in 1859 and early 1860. We must look at these issues seriously. Take them seriously. Discuss them seriously. Proceed cautiously.

[Cove Rebel]

Moderator Hat: Again this is a modern political topic that I will allow. I am allowing it because it parallels the sentiments that arose in the South in the years leading up to the Civil War even though the reasons for todays sentiments are not fully in line with the sentiments in pre-Civil War years. I think that watching this movement and the discussions both pro and con might offer us some additional insight into that time period and the emotions that ultimately tore this nation apart.

Good post.

[EasySam]

I may be wrong but I get the feeling there are some here who will follow the Fed gov't no matter what. What is most important? Country or government. If a gov't is siphoning away a citizenry's rights, as our forefathers say Britain was doing, at what point should a patriot say enough? Was bucking King & Crown treason? If - If our fed gov't kept shutting down freedoms, should we go along, wait for the gov't to give back the freedom to vote em out, or resist? I am too old for revolution but too stubborn to give up.

[sbl]

"Was bucking King & Crown treason?" Yes it was! Until we won. Why is the first response for some a fight instead of using the system. These movements are at least trying the system but they seem to attract the "no big gummint" folks. Is using the system too hard? Frankly I want to go from coast to coast w/o a passport and have equal protection of the laws. Oh yeah science to.

[bob 125th nysvi]

These times can be shockingly familiar when you look at history. While we joke and make fun or ridicule opposing opinions, surely we must all realize that these small, seemingly insignificant measures could at some point boil over and get out of control bringing about a 'line in the sand' similar to the 1860s. The issues may/may not be the same, but the end results could be virtually identical and equally disasterous.

We all think it cannot happen. We think it would be extreme. We think we are all too well informed. We think level heads will prevail. But I am sure those who lived through it back then would have said the same thing in 1859 and early 1860. We must look at these issues seriously. Take them seriously. Discuss them seriously. Proceed cautiously.

and extremist of any ilk are not willing to make any compromises since they are of course the only ones who are "right".

There are many interesting parallels to extremists in 1860 and extremist today (be they foreign or domestic).

One they tend not to make their arguments logical but emotional.

Two they are willing to resort to violence when they don't get their way.

Three they do tend to get underestimated by the 'mainstream' of the population who look at such crazy beliefs and tend to dismiss them.

Four they are motivated so they tend to be mission oriented and many times can get power all out of proportion to their numbers. Which is many times why they are so influential, the rest of the people tend to ignore them until it is too late to stop them.

The historical example in our case would be southern fire eaters who promised the people of the south that the northeners had no stomach for a fight and that they would be willing to drink all the blood split over seccession.

Unfortunately to a large proportion of southerners those assurances had a ring of truth to them so following the bad advice of the fire eaters was easy, even heady and the opportunity for democratic compromise was lost.

And by losing sight of reality and the democratic process the south as a whole paid a terrible price. Maybe as much as 1/4 of the men of military age maimed or killed. Not only was the slave economy destroyed but much of the south's infrastructure and economy along with it. Took more than 100 years to recover from that.

Maybe it is good we have, in our own history, such a prime example of what happens when we follow extremists. If only we are smart enough to listen to the ghosts who made their mistakes in the past.

Edwin Ruffin is a prime example. An extremist who ignored reality, pushed to get his views adopted, resorted to violence and was proud he had done so. Yet in the end when the path he embarked on led to disaster not only personally but for his people he couldn't face the truth nor had he the courage to try to help rebuild the south. So he took his own life instead.

Hey didn't Hitler do the same sort of thing?

[FloridaConfederate]

and extremist of any ilk are not willing to make any compromises since they are of course the only ones who are "right".

There are many interesting parallels to extremists in 1860 and extremist today (be they foreign or domestic).

One they tend not to make their arguments logical but emotional.

Two they are willing to resort to violence when they don't get their way.

Three they do tend to get underestimated by the 'mainstream' of the population who look at such crazy beliefs and tend to dismiss them.

Four they are motivated so they tend to be mission oriented and many times can get power all out of proportion to their numbers. Which is many times why they are so influential, the rest of the people tend to ignore them until it is too late to stop them.

The historical example in our case would be southern fire eaters who promised the people of the south that the northeners had no stomach for a fight and that they would be willing to drink all the blood split over seccession.

Unfortunately to a large proportion of southerners those assurances had a ring of truth to them so following the bad advice of the fire eaters was easy, even heady and the opportunity for democratic compromise was lost.

And by losing sight of reality and the democratic process the south as a whole paid a terrible price. Maybe as much as 1/4 of the men of military age maimed or killed. Not only was the slave economy destroyed but much of the south's infrastructure and economy along with it. Took more than 100 years to recover from that.

Maybe it is good we have, in our own history, such a prime example of what happens when we follow extremists. If only we are smart enough to listen to the ghosts who made their mistakes in the past.

Edwin Ruffin is a prime example. An extremist who ignored reality, pushed to get his views adopted, resorted to violence and was proud he had done so. Yet in the end when the path he embarked on led to disaster not only personally but for his people he couldn't face the truth nor had he the courage to try to help rebuild the south. So he took his own life instead.

Hey didn't Hitler do the same sort of thing?


I guess this is a reflection of your lifelong Conservative compass in action.. eh Bob ?

Compromise on Constitutional matters.

Now there is some classic Conservatism,

"Hey Chris its raining"

"Wait Arent you pissing down my leg" ?

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Regular3]

These movements are at least trying the system but they seem to attract the "no big gummint" folks. Is using the system too hard? Frankly I want to go from coast to coast w/o a passport and have equal protection of the laws. Oh yeah science to.Not to mention funding for schools, health care, national defense, interstate and international trade ... And another thing I love about these latter-day revolutionary state legislatures is that not many of those passing these "state sovreignty" bills passes up a chance to stand in front of the national government with their hand out for a handout.

As for Texas, there was no hesitation in Austin in 1845 about giving up "sovreignty" and turning to the United States government when the Republic of Texas needed relief for their national debt and protection from Mexico and the Indians ...

[FloridaConfederate]

Not to mention funding for schools, health care, national defense, interstate and international trade ... And another thing I love about these latter-day revolutionary state legislatures is that not many of those passing these "state sovreignty" bills passes up a chance to stand in front of the national government with their hand out for a handout.

Not true.

The "Sovereignty Bills" are being legislated due to being FORCED to take Federal socialized funding on matters outside the interstate commerce purview of the State / Federal Constitutional constraints.

Read the resolutions.

The VP just came out yesterday and said if states wont take the funds as the Feds dictate they will use the media to call them out and embarrass them.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

Darrell

Folks in states with a coast or two should consider this "big gummint" program.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Buoy_seal.jpg/250px-Buoy_seal.jpg

Hey seals use them too.;)

[sbl]

"Big Gummint" at work on our rivers too.....

http://www.uscg.mil/d8/sectUMR/Prevention/img/scioto.JPG

[FloridaConfederate]

Scott,

Navigable waterways are under the purview of interstate commerce concept of the State / Federal compact.

deletion - THP; getting personal

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

Sure looks like a USCG Buoytender on the river to me. Nice to have the national standardization too.

[flattop32355]

I may be wrong but I get the feeling there are some here who will follow the Fed gov't no matter what. What is most important? Country or government. If a gov't is siphoning away a citizenry's rights, as our forefathers say Britain was doing, at what point should a patriot say enough? Was bucking King & Crown treason? If - If our fed gov't kept shutting down freedoms, should we go along, wait for the gov't to give back the freedom to vote em out, or resist? I am too old for revolution but too stubborn to give up.

A difference between then and now is that we have the ability to vote the SOB's/DOB's out of office every two to four years. That was not an option with British rule.

Yes, we did have that option at the time of the Civil War, but it was chosen by some not to exercise that path, as they anticipated ultimate failure using that process, believing either that they could withdraw from the Union fairly quietly, or could win a war quickly.

[FloridaConfederate]

Sure looks like a USCG Buoytender on the river to me. Nice to have the national standardization too.


Yes. My point exactly.

Navigable waterways = interstate commerce clause.

deletion - THP; getting personal

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[flattop32355]

The VP just came out yesterday and said if states wont take the funds as the Feds dictate they will use the media to call them out and embarrass them.

That could sooooooooooo backfire, ever so beautifully!

[sbl]

So the Federal Govt's buoytenders and standardized navagational aids on rivers and inland waterways are not big government because they work with the states?

[Cove Rebel]

I drew the parallel to make a point that we can use our current situation and compare it to the past situation and use it as a vehicle for learning. If you took our current political and economic situation and put in motion somewhat similar actions as the late 1850s-1860, it is facinating to try and imagine how the people must have felt and the sacrifices and choices they would have to make. We can use that as a method of drawing conclusions about the emotional impact of the situation that is not captured in textbooks.

Some of the similarities are vague comparisons only (and sometimes a stretch), but interesting to examine none the less, e.g.- The Panic of 1857 (Economic Downturn). Banks in trouble. Businesses in trouble. Issues over labor (then slave vs free, but today could be union vs non-union, illegals vs whoever). Election of a candidate that polarized the nation. State reasserting their sovereignty. This is interesting stuff.

[FloridaConfederate]

So the Federal Govt's buoytenders and standardized navagational aids on rivers and inland waterways are not big government because they work with the states?

Just stop.

Your mastery of interstate commerce and the relationship between state and federal in this regard need brushing up.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[hanktrent]

and extremist of any ilk are not willing to make any compromises since they are of course the only ones who are "right".

There are many interesting parallels to extremists in 1860 and extremist today (be they foreign or domestic).

I think you really hit it on the head with that summary, but what's funny is that while I was reading it, I was coming to just the opposite conclusion.

One they tend not to make their arguments logical but emotional.

Who cares about economics and law--those poor negroes!

Two they are willing to resort to violence when they don't get their way.

John Brown, bloody Kansas, and mob rescues to prevent slaves from being legally returned.

Three they do tend to get underestimated by the 'mainstream' of the population who look at such crazy beliefs and tend to dismiss them.

They're just a bunch of fanatics up in Massachusetts, and those western states are violent anyway.

Four they are motivated so they tend to be mission oriented and many times can get power all out of proportion to their numbers. Which is many times why they are so influential, the rest of the people tend to ignore them until it is too late to stop them.

They'll never get a president in office who'd listen to them... uh oh!

The historical example in our case would be southern fire eaters who promised the people of the south that the northeners had no stomach for a fight and that they would be willing to drink all the blood split over seccession.

I'm not sure what all that means, other than it may be a rohrschah test to reveal some deep Freudian parts of our personalities, LOL! But perhaps it also shows that it takes two opposing types of extremists to bring about tragedy rather than successful compromise.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[sbl]

How is the USCG Buoy Tender in the photo not part of the Federal Govt. working with the state?

[FloridaConfederate]

How is the USCG Buoy Tender in the photo not part of the Federal Govt. working with the state?

Beats head agin wall.

Interstate highways, navigable waterways, common currency, mail, etc are all Federally delegated responsibilites to facilitate to interstate commerce.


Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

...and you have a problem with that? I don't. I think it ought work well and be subject to audits, regulations and oversight.

[FloridaConfederate]

...and you have a problem with that? I don't. I think it ought work well and be subject to audits, regulations and oversight.

No problem here.

Just like the Fugitive Slave Act..total interstate commerce..once the Fed Gov refused to uphold the compact to return property to its lawful owners..war.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[sbl]

It cost $40,000 1853 dollars to get slave Anthony Burns back. US Marines from the Charlestown Navy Yard and the Massachusetts militia to enforce the act to get one man back to his owner. Buoys and lighthouses are more cost effective and benefit anyone with a boat.

[tompritchett]

So the Federal Govt's buoytenders and standardized navagational aids on rivers and inland waterways are not big government because they work with the states?

I would say more that they would fall into the specific powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution. Because of that, those powers would not be be covered by the 10th Amendment.

[Huck]

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

During the war, the secessionist government of Texas had sold U.S. bonds after passing an ordinance repealing a requirement that the governor of Texas endorse the bonds before redeeming them. The case was brought by the state of Texas to recover the bonds that had thus been transferred to White, Chiles, and several others. The issue of whether or not Texas was a state of the United States had bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the case.

The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, himself a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln and leading figure in the Union government during the American Civil War. Based on his previous position, many southerners questioned Chase's impartiality and believed he should have recused himself from the decision. While legally binding, the court's decision was extremely controversial and remains so to this day. Many former Confederate officials such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as well as legal theorists such as Lysander Spooner rejected the court's reasoning and defended the right of states to secede.

The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null".

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
Justice Grier, in a dissent in which Justices Swayne and Miller joined, denied that Texas remained a state, on the basis not that Texas had successfully seceded but that she had become a "conquered province". Grier cited precedent that a state is defined as an entity with representation in the United States Congress. During the Civil War, Texas had lost that representation. Thus, her status had become more analogous to an Indian tribe than to a state.

[Pete K]

Working on the idea that the members of Congress themselves "seceeded" when they left Washington DC for the new Congress and their home states... Did the Confederates deprive themselves of representation? Andrew Johnson remained in the Senate, so did Confederate Tennessee have representation in both Congresses? What is the legal definition of not having representation?

[FloridaConfederate]

I would say more that they would fall into the specific powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution. Because of that, those powers would not be be covered by the 10th Amendment.


Tom...the 10th says powers not delegated to the Fed are reserved by the state(paraphrase)...if regulation of interstate commerce is delegated to Feds..how is that delegation not in keeping with the 10th ?

Really man.

Chris Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[tompritchett]

Feds..how is that delegation not in keeping with the 10th ?

I realize that I was a little ambiquous in what I was saying and how I said it. To rephrase - because the Constitution specifically delegates the power to regulate inter-state commerce to the Federal government, these powers would not be among those that the 10th states belong only to the states.

[plankmaker]

Tom,

Try banning out of State waste from being transported and disposed in your State. Virginia learned that lesson big time from Waste Management. There are some peeps at the AG's office still hurting from that one.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[tompritchett]

Try banning out of State waste from being transported and disposed in your State. Virginia learned that lesson big time from Waste Management. There are some peeps at the AG's office still hurting from that one.

A couple of counties here in PA learned the same lesson when they tried to ban out of state trash being deposited in permited landfills in their county. The states and counties can control the permits for the landfill but they cannot dictate where the trash can come from as that would be restricting inter-state commerce which only the Federal government can regulate as per the Constitution.

[Poor Private]

Ok lets try out of country waste. We are/were starting to receive Canadas' waste.

[tompritchett]

Ok lets try out of country waste. We are/were starting to receive Canadas' waste.

Good question. My guess would be because this would not qualify as intra-state commerce, it would by default be considered inter-state commerce,especially if the trash hauler is a U.S. company based in another state. Given the distances involved, what are they doing, shipping it down by rail?

As an aside, having spent an appreciable amount of time in Western Ky coal country, I actually once did a quick set of calculations looking at how much solid waste could be put in a mined out strip mine which was then built up like a typical landfill versus the daily amount of waste that was then going into the Fresh Kills landfill, then the largest active Northeastern landfill. Essentially, such a landfill could accept wastes for almost a century before having to be closed. And the amount of methane that could be then converted to electricity would have been very significant. And the numbers get even more staggering when one looks at some of the even larger strip mines out West. But then that is another story for another forum.

[Cove Rebel]

The South has been receiving the North's "waste" since Reconstruction began. :D :D (sorry, couldn't resist)