Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)

Henrin said:

They are sovereign.

This is re-re-quoted from a post made by a user here last year or so.









You libs can hide behind rulings like Texas v. White if you wish, but the fact remains the country is founded on a union of nations that allows those nations to break from that union if they so wish. There is a logical reason that can't be denied that the states are called states and the union is called a union. Try to pretend if you wish that union was indeed a take over by the all powerful government if you wish than do you damnest to try to support it by statements of the time.

Anyway, I support this action. More states need to threaten to leave.

Click to expand...

interesting quotes you have there, you should add to it the Federalist Paper number 17, it discusses the fears the federalists had of states gaining power over the federal government because since the state government is closer to each individual they'd be more likely to side with their state against the federal government.

unfortunately after all of these quotes and writings there was a giant war that killed 600,000 people the results of which made it completely infeasible for any state to actually ever be sovereign again. then the 17th amendment which took the state governments' power of choosing senators away. states have only have the powers that the current federal government allows them to have, in every instance the supreme court will back the federal government (them being agents of the federal government afterall what would you expect?).

don't worry, the federalist system is very key to what made the US such a brilliant idea. the farther we move away from it, the more apparent the reasoning behind it comes, and the closer to the next awakening we get. it's like a ratchet, we can only move in one direction (away from federalism) until it breaks and we gotta put it back together from scratch.

Read the anti-federalists' papers if you really want knowledge about our founders' fear of federal power.

Federalist papers had hamilton help write them, who loooooved tons of centralized government power. Madison was akin to hamilton back then and John Jay only contributed to like 4-5 of the papers.

iamitter said:

It's not that it was faught over a tariff, its that the states were splintering on many issues and tariffs happened to be one of them. http://mises.org/etexts/taussig.pdf
The taussig essays. Most of the things I posted are open source, as they are very old documents. Skip to page 43 (in the book) or 46 (in this pdf). It's dense stuff and I wouldn't expect anyone to read it unless they're really interested. It was written in 1888, after all.
"The Civil War was fought over what important issue?" - one of the twenty questions on an exam administered by the IMS to prospective American citizens.
According to the INS, you are correct if you say either "slavery or states rights".

Here's part of Egnal's paper: Rethinking the secession of the Lower South: the clash of two groups. | Goliath Business News

I can't really give you many quotes because I have these books in print and can't just ctrl-f this.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I don't think we're in disagreement. We, and the links you provided, agree that the tariff was a contributing factor. Aside from the issue of a nat'l bank it was probably the oldest sectional divide. The war, however, was sparked, over the issue of slavery -- states rights being pertinent to both issues.

What I was saying earlier is that, by the 1850s and 60s, the tariff was not the most salient issue, the expansion of slavery into the west was. Look at Bleeding Kansas... you might say the civil war actually started there, well before 1861 -- only no states had yet seceeded. The fighting broke out over slavery in the territory as it struggled for statehood. The tariff didn't matter in Kansas like it did in South Carolina or Virginia.

That said, the tariff was certainly an issue in the debates, in the latter 1850s northerners were pissed that it was so low and even made it a campaign issue in national elections. This definitely raised rancor in the south and served to worsen the divide, but not like the abolitionists -- or percieved abolitionists (Republicans) -- did.

Deuce said:

SCOTUS:

"Federal Supremacy. SB1433 overturned."

Arizona:


(not that this will pass in the first place.)


Of course, I would not cry much if Arizona DID pass this and try to act like they're a sovereign nation. Remember how that worked out last time? 49 to 1 odds this time, AZ...

Click to expand...

You just can't help yourself; big govt control is such a part of your soul that it irks you to think someone might disagree with your precious big federal govt. Oh boohoo.

Do you really think, at the rate things are going, that their couldn't be another civil war in this country? Wonder how many of you know that many communities are already using something other then the US dollar as currency? Tired of Cash, Local Communities Using Alternative Currencies to Come Together | Trend World | Big Think

Do you know what is going to happen in this country, if the dollar is no longer the primary reserve currency of the world? It has already lost nearly 11% to other major currencies (since the end of 2008) or that their have been meetings going on … without the US present The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent

Can anyone image what is going to happen if this happens? Oil prices could more then double overnight. Inflation will follow, at rates we have never seen before.

Now consider the divide in this country now between liberals and conservatives, you don't think it will widen even more ?? I'm certainly not promoting another civil war, but I would suggest it not be brushed off so quickly, because the divide among the parties and the people that support them, is becoming more and more un-civil every day . Don't believe me, just read the threads here on the boards.

The sad thing is when it happened the first time and most likely the sad thing if it happens again, is not so much the union will be split but that the fed will force a peaceful and bitter break up into a blood soaked war once again. There really is no reason to fight it out when it comes. If you are an ass and the states are unhappy, do us all a favor and let it happen without a war.

danarhea said:

:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Sad....but true.

American said:

You just can't help yourself; big govt control is such a part of your soul that it irks you to think someone might disagree with your precious big federal govt. Oh boohoo.

Click to expand...

It's reality. And you're the one who seems to be upset, not me.

Did you happen to read the part where I specifically said that I wouldn't care if they did do this? Because I specifically said I don't care. You, somehow, managed to interpret the post in the opposite manner. Who read my post to you? You should fire that person.

The Giant Noodle said:

Well this is surprising! And VERY interesting at that! Heck they need to protect their borders so..... I guess this MIGHT work.


CONTINUED: azcentral.com blogs - E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog - EJMontini - Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)

Click to expand...

You all know that Montini is a partison liberal from waaaay back, don't you. I have been reading him in the local rag for 20 years and he is becoming more and more blatant, does'nt try to hide it anymore.

American said:

You just can't help yourself; big govt control is such a part of your soul that it irks you to think someone might disagree with your precious big federal govt. Oh boohoo.

Click to expand...

Dont buy into the story that republicans do ANYTHING (without a show) to make the govt smaller. These new guys in office..... well. We shall see. But I would hope that you would know that republicans say one thing and do something else behind the doors.

The Barbarian said:

Do you really think, at the rate things are going, that their couldn't be another civil war in this country? Wonder how many of you know that many communities are already using something other then the US dollar as currency? Tired of Cash, Local Communities Using Alternative Currencies to Come Together | Trend World | Big Think

Do you know what is going to happen in this country, if the dollar is no longer the primary reserve currency of the world? It has already lost nearly 11% to other major currencies (since the end of 2008) or that their have been meetings going on … without the US present The demise of the dollar - Business News, Business - The Independent

Can anyone image what is going to happen if this happens? Oil prices could more then double overnight. Inflation will follow, at rates we have never seen before.

Now consider the divide in this country now between liberals and conservatives, you don't think it will widen even more ?? I'm certainly not promoting another civil war, but I would suggest it not be brushed off so quickly, because the divide among the parties and the people that support them, is becoming more and more un-civil every day . Don't believe me, just read the threads here on the boards.

Click to expand...

IF, there was a civil war between liberals and conservatives, who do you think would win? What would be the rallying cry? What would be the end game? What would be the reasons on each side that they were willing to fight for? In the end, what would the country look like politically?
Interesting premise, thank you.

The Giant Noodle said:

Dont buy into the story that republicans do ANYTHING (without a show) to make the govt smaller. These new guys in office..... well. We shall see. But I would hope that you would know that republicans say one thing and do something else behind the doors.

Click to expand...

Oh, you are talking about John McCain again, huh. The new guys, I hold some hope..... we'll see.

cholla said:

IF, there was a civil war between liberals and conservatives, who do you think would win? What would be the rallying cry? What would be the end game? What would be the reasons on each side that they were willing to fight for? In the end, what would the country look like politically?
Interesting premise, thank you.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can answer any of your questions, what I was trying to show, is that we are much closer to being put into a position where we aren't going to be given a choice but to decide if we want an over blown government, or one that is more basic.

Gawd this is hard, I could tell you some of the steps I'm taking to protect myself from what could be coming, and I'm not a doom and gloom guy, but for the first time in my life, I'm scared.

I could also tell you all the reasons I'm scared, but that would take pages and pages, the main one however, is our dollar, right now it's on the verge of losing it's standing as the worlds currency, much closer then I think most realize. If that happens, all hell is going to break lose. We are going to see inflation like we have never seen it before. The collapse of 2008 is going to seem like a good time. Right now our economy is being propped up by the fact of our dollars acceptance as the world currency, we are holding on by our fingernails because our government can and IS just printing more and more of it.

If the fall of the dollar happens, and I truly believe it will if drastic steps aren't taken now. Then I believe the war is not going to be between conservatives and liberals, but a war between values. When you can't give your family the basic necessities to survive it's going to turn to how you survive, either by being self sufficient, or if you turn to trying to take it from others. If you are one of those that can become self sufficient, are you going to protect your family from those that are trying to take it from you? That is the war I see coming if things turn bad.

I guess what I'm asking is those that depend on our government for everything, what are they going to do when the government can't provide for them ? Are our laws going to mean anything? Those that don't depend on our government, how far will they go to protect what they have?

As far as who wins, well I'm conservative, so my opinion is those who can become self sufficient. But it's not going to be a win for anyone, because our way of life is going to be lowered drastically for all.

Henrin said:

You libs can hide behind rulings like Texas v. White if you wish, but the fact remains the country is founded on a union of nations that allows those nations to break from that union if they so wish. There is a logical reason that can't be denied that the states are called states and the union is called a union. Try to pretend if you wish that union was indeed a take over by the all powerful government if you wish than do you damnest to try to support it by statements of the time.

Anyway, I support this action. More states need to threaten to leave.

Click to expand...

You might be able to make that argument about the thirteen original states (plus perhaps Vermont and Texas based on how they entered the Union) but all of the other parts of the U.S. became parts of the U.S. as a result of TREATIES signed and ratified by the FEDERAL governemnt (except Hawaii) -- Texas was as well, but again, different circumstances as most of us know... I don't think your argument would apply to them. The territory that is now Arizona came to be U.S. territory on the virtue of two treaties the U.S. government signed with Mexico (both of which also involved the transfer of FEDERAL funds to acquire said territory). Your argument doesn't hold...

CriticalThought said:

So basically they are ignoring the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Fine by me. The federal government can withhold federal funding from them and give them a taste of what it really is like to be sovereign.

Click to expand...

Remember that you are talking about money that the Federal government removes from the states in the first place...

The dissolution of the Union would destroy the American people materially (compare to busting up a monopoly) but it might uplift them spiritually and culturally.

Morality Games said:

The dissolution of the Union would destroy the American people materially (compare to busting up a monopoly) but it might uplift them spiritually and culturally.

Click to expand...

The cons of dissolving the union is so bad, that the benefits don't even deserve consideration, just like the idea in its entirety. It just isn't an option, and never should be.

repeter said:

The cons of dissolving the union is so bad, that the benefits don't even deserve consideration, just like the idea in its entirety. It just isn't an option, and never should be.

Click to expand...

Its hard to be uplifted spiritually and culturally if you don't have a functioning economy actually. You might get religious extremism, as that breeds in that sort of environment, but that is hardly spiritual uplifting.

repeter said:

The cons of dissolving the union is so bad, that the benefits don't even deserve consideration, just like the idea in its entirety. It just isn't an option, and never should be.

Click to expand...

It more or less destroys the United States as a military and economic superpower. Not sure how much that bothers me anymore.

Its hard to be uplifted spiritually and culturally if you don't have a functioning economy actually.

Click to expand...

The Greeks (specifically Athens) and Romans were poor; they became more corrupt as they obtained more wealth and power, which ultimately lead to the "disintegration" of their civilizations.

Morality Games said:

The Greeks (specifically Athens) and Romans were poor; they became more corrupt as they obtained more wealth and power, which ultimately lead to the "disintegration" of their civilizations.

Click to expand...

They were poor relative to us, but they were also poor in a poor world and such things are measured by the human mind in a relative sense, not an absolute one. This is why today there is unrest in places that used to be peaceful. Television and other media made people aware of that there were rich people in other parts of the world and suddenly they felt poor instead of feeling like everyone else. In that environment, the mind is poisoned and extremism breeds.

Goshin said:

Disputes over State Nullification of Fed law was one of the major causes of the Civil War.

Click to expand...

Ahaha. And yet no state mentions this in their declarations of secession.

megaprogman said:

They were poor relative to us, but they were also poor in a poor world and such things are measured by the human mind in a relative sense, not an absolute one. This is why today there is unrest in places that used to be peaceful. Television and other media made people aware of that there were rich people in other parts of the world and suddenly they felt poor instead of feeling like everyone else. In that environment, the mind is poisoned and extremism breeds.

Click to expand...

The Athenians (and Greeks generally) identified themselves as poor because their rough and mountainous terrain did not support agriculture as strongly as water currents like the Nile did in the "nearby" civilizations of Africa and Asia Minor. They took pride in their poverty and believed it endowed them with moral and mental fortitude, a belief in which there was some truth; the scarcity of resources encouraged them to take up artisan crafts (pottery, for example), to find niches in the 'global economy' (luxury goods like olives and wine) and to explore the Mediterranean for other communities to trade with, which lead to increasing sophistication in theoretical sciences and engineering. This coupled with the successful exploitation of a number of historical developments (specifically the Persian Wars), they built up enough degree centrality to become the Athenian Empire; that is until misuse of democracy lead to the Sicilian Expedition (think Vietnam, or Iraq, but worse) which lead to the gradual erosion of their power. Not dissimilar to America's situation.


Human wisdom tends to be sufficient that through a mixture of accidents and deliberation it can create a superpower, but maintaining one indefinitely is a challenge not yet overcome. Alexander and Napoleon created temporal superpowers. The Mongols and Athenians created one that lasted a single generation. The Chinese have waxed in and out of the stature through different periods of their existence. And America is losing ours after ninety years. So far, the Romans and to a lesser extent the Byzantines have come closest to a prolonged and unchallengeable hegemony.

Morality Games said:

The Athenians (and Greeks generally) identified themselves as poor because their rough and mountainous terrain did not support agriculture as strongly as water currents like the Nile did in the "nearby" civilizations of Africa and Asia Minor. They took pride in their poverty and believed it endowed them with moral and mental fortitude, a belief in which there was some truth; the scarcity of resources encouraged them to take up artisan crafts (pottery, for example), to find niches in the 'global economy' (luxury goods like olives and wine) and to explore the Mediterranean for other communities to trade with, which lead to increasing sophistication in theoretical sciences and engineering. This coupled with the successful exploitation of a number of historical developments (specifically the Persian Wars), they built up enough degree centrality to become the Athenian Empire; that is until misuse of democracy lead to the Sicilian Expedition (think Vietnam, or Iraq, but worse) which lead to the gradual erosion of their power. Not dissimilar to America's situation.


Human wisdom tends to be sufficient that through a mixture of accidents and deliberation it can create a superpower nation, but maintaining one indefinitely is a challenge not yet overcome. Alexander and Napoleon created temporal superpowers. The Mongols and Athenians created one that lasted a single generation. The Chinese have waxed in and out of the stature through different periods of their existence. And America is losing ours after ninety years. So far, the Romans and to a lesser extent the Byzantines have come closest to a prolonged and unchallengeable hegemony.

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, while the Athenians didn't retain their dominance in Greece very long, the Romans managed to be a superpower for centuries, first while expanding aggressively across the mediterranean and then while fighting sporadic foreign/border wars. Sometimes, states can be powerful and corrupt for quite a while before they actually collapse.

other said:

Interestingly enough, while the Athenians didn't retain their dominance in Greece very long, the Romans managed to be a superpower for centuries, first while expanding aggressively across the mediterranean and then while fighting sporadic foreign/border wars. Sometimes, states can be powerful and corrupt for quite a while before they actually collapse.

Click to expand...

A lot of those rules don't apply to the United States though, because improvements in communications, the distribution of goods, and the movement of people accelerates the momentum of a civilization's development through space-time. Neither years nor distance pose the same obstacle to the growth or erosion of a society as they did in ancient times; a sufficiently strong society's power can be put too work in any place almost immediately. This drastically alters the terms of any economic, cultural, or military engagement.

Unlike the temporal empires I was referring to, Rome increased slowly over a long period of time, which proportionately slowed the incidence and severity of economic, military, and cultural challenges. But, still like the others, it couldn't address these challenges, which lead to the erosion of its power; more gradually, but under the same general rules.

Morality Games said:

A lot of those rules don't apply to the United States though, because improvements in communications, the distribution of goods, and the movement of people accelerates the momentum of a civilization's development through space-time. Neither years nor distance pose the same obstacle to the growth or erosion of a society as they did in ancient times; a sufficiently strong society's power can be put too work in any place almost immediately. This drastically alters the terms of any economic, cultural, or military engagement.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know if advanced communications/technology really helps or hinders world powers (overall). I think an argument could be made either way, but I think I tend to agree with you -- seems sensible that the inherrent instability has more of an impact than its use to regulate/control. Don't know though, hmm.