Next step...secession?

Sundance wrote: Gee! I guess just like the 8,550sq ft building which will house ONE office. Are they going to have some dances/social gatherings there?

Sorta ot, but since you brought it up...... When I was a recruiter in Mi. I was responsible for 5 rural high schools. Each was its own school district, each had a huge admin. building on a separate piece of property which housed the superintendent and a few other paper pushers.
For a while my wife and I were part of a ballroom dancing group. I do not remember the cost, but it was cheap to rent the assembly room in one of the admin buildings that was as big as a ball room.

archer wrote:

major bean wrote: It is about time. Our gov't is a federation. The federal gov't is not over the states but is composed of the states. The states, collectively, decide what the federation is to do. Who else would tell the federation of states what they can do, except the states?

And if the states disagree? Civil war? That's what happened the last time some states said they weren't going to follow federal laws.

Wasn't it the states that weren't following the Constitution that refused to allow the other ones to withdraw from the Union peaceably the last time around? Joining the union of states was, after all, a voluntary decision, why wouldn't withdrawal from the union also be allowed under that same adherence to the voluntary decision of the state without the need arising to resort to war to prevent that withdrawal? The Constitution was ratified and took affect when the 9th state, New Hampshire, ratified it in June of 1788. At that point, there were still 4 states of the original 13 that were independent sovereign states that were not a part of the union of states. North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't join the union that the Constitution established until after Washington had been inaugurated as the nation's first President, more than a year after that happened in the case of Rhode Island.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote:

major bean wrote: It is about time. Our gov't is a federation. The federal gov't is not over the states but is composed of the states. The states, collectively, decide what the federation is to do. Who else would tell the federation of states what they can do, except the states?

And if the states disagree? Civil war? That's what happened the last time some states said they weren't going to follow federal laws.

Wasn't it the states that weren't following the Constitution that refused to allow the other ones to withdraw from the Union peaceably the last time around? Joining the union of states was, after all, a voluntary decision, why wouldn't withdrawal from the union also be allowed under that same adherence to the voluntary decision of the state without the need arising to resort to war to prevent that withdrawal? The Constitution was ratified and took affect when the 9th state, New Hampshire, ratified it in June of 1788. At that point, there were still 4 states of the original 13 that were independent sovereign states that were not a part of the union of states. North Carolina and Rhode Island didn't join the union that the Constitution established until after Washington had been inaugurated as the nation's first President, more than a year after that happened in the case of Rhode Island.

Sounds like you are arguing for a breakup of the United States into single states, if those states so choose. Pretty radical thinking.

archer, the states change what the federation does by a two/thirds vote. It is that simple.

major bean wrote: archer, the states change what the federation does by a two/thirds vote. It is that simple.

And that has what to do with a state's right to secede that PS appears to promote?

I was under the impression that Texas was the only state that had the legal right to secede.

towermonkey wrote: I was under the impression that Texas was the only state that had the legal right to secede.

I used to think that too... And I found out it's not true...

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/04 ... it-itself/


I think the question of state's secession has been settled...at a terrible cost.

LadyJazzer wrote: Fortunately, there are enough sane people in the country that will never happen.

The greatest fear of the self-loathing (poverty sticken) liberals is for majority rule. Then they can no longer impose their agenda upon all others. They believe themselves to be much smarter than the unwashed masses. But the 2/3 rule is the weapon that can be used to put the elitists back in their place (the welfare line).

:indifferent: :Snooze