New Hampshire
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=389
Wonder if TX is included in those 25 states that the NH politician mentions? Doesn't TX have it written into their constitution that they are able to leave the Union?
I can be proven wrong on this one, but my understanding of the subject is this.
The concurrent resolution of Congress (not a "treaty") that annexed Texas into the U.S. contained provisions for the area that comprises the state of Texas to split into as many as five states, and the right of any of these five to not remain a part of the U.S. upon establishment.
Joining the Confederacy and subsequent Reconstruction legislation made these provisions null and void.
No provosion to secede is found in the Texas constitution adopted in 1876, however it does state that Texas is a free and independent state, subject only to the constitution of the United States, it does not say subject to the President of the United States. As proven in the civil War, any and every state can secede, and suffer the consequences. We may well see that tested in the next few years.
Americans Fighting Back........
Barack Obama and his Democrat majority may think they have a mandate to transform our nation into a European style social democracy, but Americans apparently have a different idea.
First, as we watch the stock market continuing its free fall, keep in mind the reason - Americans are taking their money out of the stock market. There are now millions of dollars sitting one the sidelines, waiting to see what happens. People are taking their wealth into their own hands to preserve it. I did that too.
Second, it's interesting to note that the market started this latest fall as soon as the so called Stimulus package was passed in Congress........................................................
Read the rest here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8789
Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama's Action
by A.W.R. Hawkins
State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama "stimulus" plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of "hope" equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government's authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, [Minnesota]...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to "cease and desist" from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The use of the 10th Amendment in conjunction with nullification garnered much attention in 1828, when the federal government passed a tariff that southerners believed affected them disproportionately. When the 1828 tariff was complemented by another in 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to lead his home state of South Carolina in pursuit of an "ordinance of nullification," which was no less a declaration of the sovereignty of each individual state within the union than the declarations now being made.
Calhoun was simply exercising what he recognized to be his state's right to defend liberty within its borders by rejecting the dictates of an overbearing central government. While his efforts culminated in a tense affair referred to as the "nullification crisis," which witnessed everything from threats of a federal invasion of South Carolina to an ongoing and near union-rending debate over national power vs. state's rights, they also succeeded in turning back the tariffs that had been passed in spite of the Constitutional limits on federal power.
This time around, in 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama's "stimulus bill," federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things.
For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri's "House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama's stated intention to sign into law a federal 'Freedom of Choice Act', [because] the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law 'enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment' and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future."
The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, "An Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And Retained In Montana."
New Hampshire's resolution actually references certain federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama's administration, according to americandaily.com. Among these are "Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.
Regardless of the specific reason behind each of the resolutions in the 11 states, all of them direct the federal government to "cease and desist" in its reckless violation of state's rights. In this way, South Carolina's resolution is typical of the others issued to date:
"The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina 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 United States Constitution...
Be it...resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as South Carolina's agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates...beyond the scope of the federal government's constitutionally delegated powers."
What these state assemblies and congresses have hit upon here is key to our entire conservative interpretation of the Constitution, for these states understand that the Constitution limits the federal government, not the people. Or to put it another way, it guarantees the freedom of the people by limiting the government.
Every conservative should relish the call for the federal government to "cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of [its] constitutionally delegated powers." In this way, we honor the Constitution that enumerates a number of our liberties yet also guarantees us other liberties that are neither enumerated nor denied in the document.
Liberals don't respect the Constitution, and liberals in Congress don't hesitate to propose legislation that would clearly violate it. The current push to give Washington, D.C. a voting representative in the House of Representatives is a good example; even liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley told a Congressional hearing that this bill is patently unconstitutional. But they press on with it.
Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is always thought of as enabling two of the three branches of the federal government to keep the third within its constitutional bounds. But there is a fourth check, the states, which also have a Constitutional function. It is to them this burden now falls. The states can choose between allowing the federal government to impose untenable conditions on them if they accept the stimulus money, or to reject it.
These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan. And they must.
There is no other option. For this federal expansion will not stop unless we stand in its way with courage in our hearts and the Constitution in our hands.
HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.
TENTH AMENDMENT - The Tenth Amendment provides that " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " U.S. Const. amend. X. As a textual matter, therefore, the Tenth Amendment "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered." United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941). By its terms, the Amendment does not purport to limit the commerce power or any other enumerated power of Congress.
In recent years, however, the Tenth Amendment has been interpreted "to encompass any implied constitutional limitation on Congress' authority to regulate state activities, whether grounded in the Tenth Amendment itself or in principles of federalism derived generally from the Constitution." South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 511 n.5 (1988). Thus, "the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States." New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 157 (1992).
There are numbers of ways in which the federal government is permitted to secure the assistance of state authorities in achieving federal legislative goals. First and most directly, the federal government may coerce the states and their employees into complying with federal laws of general applicability. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985). Second, Congress may condition the grant of federal funds on the States' taking governmental action desired by Congress. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
State judicial and administrative bodies may be required to apply federal law. Testa v. Katt, 330 U.S. 386 (1947); FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 760-61 (1982). The federal government may offer to preempt regulation in a given area, and permit the states to avoid preemption if they regulate in a manner acceptable to Congress. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264, 290-91 (1981).
The federal government has been permitted effectively to compel the states to issue registered rather than bearer bonds. South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 514 (1988). Finally, the federal government has been permitted to require state utility regulators to consider prescribed federal standards in determining regulatory policies. FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 765. In the course of the latter ruling, the Supreme Court referred to and rejected the "19th century view" that "Congress has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it." Id. at 761 (quoting Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 107 (1861)). That view, said the Court, "is not representative of the law today." Id. "The federal government has some power to enlist a branch of state government . . . to further federal ends." Id. at 762.
United States v. New York, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), "a direct order to regulate, standing alone, would . . . be beyond the power of Congress." Id. at 176. the Court in New York stated: "whether or not a particularly strong federal interest enables Congress to bring state governments within the orbit of generally applicable federal regulation, no Member of the Court has ever suggested that such a federal interest would enable Congress to command a state government to enact state regulation." Id. at 178. In the same vein was the Court's conclusion after reviewing the debates at the time of the founding of the Constitution:
We have always understood that even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. E.g., FERC v. Mississippi. . . . The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce. Id. at 166.
Other decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized this proposition that the federal government cannot coerce States into performing the ultimately sovereign acts of legislating or regulating in a manner specified by the federal government. In Virginia Surface Mining, the Court noted that the provision of an alternative of federal regulation rendered federal standards for state regulation permissible; because the State had a constitutional option, "there can be no suggestion that the Act commandeers the legislative processes by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program." Virginia Surface Mining, 452 U.S. at 288 (emphasis added). Similarly, In FERC v. Mississippi, the Court noted that the federal command that the State "consider" federal alternatives was constitutional because "[t]here is nothing in PURPA 'directly compelling' the States to enact a legislative program." FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 765.
"[T]he etiquette of federalism has been violated by a formal command from the National Government directing the State to enact a certain policy, cf. New York." United States v. Lopez, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1642 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also Board of Natural Resources v. Brown, 992 F.2d 937, 947 (9th Cir. 1993) ("direct commands to the states to regulate according to Congress's instructions" "violate the Tenth Amendment as interpreted by New York").
There are good reasons for focusing Tenth Amemdment concern on federal coercion of a State's enactment of legislation or regulations or creation of an administrative program. These activities are inherently central acts of a sovereign; if an area of state activity is to be protected from direct coercion by an implication drawn from the Tenth Amendment, legislating and regulating are prime candidates. "[T]he power to make decisions and to set policy is what gives the State its sovereign nature." FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. at 761. There is a second reason, also, emphasized in New York itself. Democratic governments must be politically accountable. When the federal government requires the States to enact legislation, the enacted legislation is state legislation. Thus, it will likely "be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision." New York, 505 U.S. at 169. When the federal government itself imposes a requirement on a state official, the requirement is more clearly an act of the federal government and thus does not, to the same extent, undermine political accountability.
The Tenth Amendment view espoused in Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. (24 How.) 66, 107 (1861), overruled by Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was that "the Federal Government . . . has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatsoever . . . ." See Brown, 521 F.2d at 841. As the Supreme Court has made clear, the view espoused in Kentucky v. Dennison is no longer representative of the law. FERC, 456 U.S. at 761.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8789
Quote from: redcliffsw on March 09, 2009, 06:30:24 PM
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8789
last 2 paragraphs of above link.................
Our federal government was given limited, specific enumerated powers by the states which formed it - and the U.S. Constitution was specifically written to keep any centralized government in check. As noted, over 90% of our Federal Government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. It has become dictatorial, tyrannical, and uncontrollable.
States are finally stepping up to the plate to claim back their rights under the 10th Amendment, which states that "powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people".
Our founding fathers and even ole George Wallace were right on
States' rights.
States' Rebellion Begins to Rumble - by black columnist Walter Williams
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92752
Atlanta - There's an old joke in South Carolina: Confederate President Jefferson Davis may have surrendered at the Burt-Stark mansion in Abbeville, S.C., in 1865, but the people of state Rep. Michael Pitts's district never did.
With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.
"Washington can be a bully, but there's evidence right now that there are people willing to resist our bully," said Pitts, by phone from the state capitol of Columbia.
Just as California under President Bush asserted itself on issues ranging from gun control to medical marijuana, a motley cohort of states – from South Carolina to New Hampshire, from Washington State to Oklahoma – are presenting a foil for President Obama's national ambitions. And they're laying the groundwork for a political standoff over the 10th Amendment, which cedes all power not granted to Washington to the people.
The movement's success will largely depend on whether Washington sees these legislative insurgents as serious – or, as Pitts puts it, as just "a bunch of rednecks."
"There's a lot of frustration when someone quite distant from you forces you to do something you don't want to do," says Steve Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in D.C. "That's the root cause, and it ends up being rationalized in constitutional terms."
Read the rest of the story........
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0327/p02s01-usgn.html
Looks like the Texas gov'ner is toying with secession, but he's probably just looking for popularity - ya think?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/governor-says-texans-want-secede-union-probably-wont/
I don't think that we have reached the point of secession yet, but if thing don't change, who knows.
Billy, you are right here. We are not ready for secession. Running away has never solved anything.
I am not suggesting that the states should run away just hold the gov't in check. If the Federal gov't would adhere to the Constitution, like it should, I think we would have an even stronger country. I think that is what the states are telling the gov't...well that and that they are tired of the fed. gov't overstepping its bounds.
I understand the frustration of modern day US states where the topic of secession comes up. Hawaii, California, Texas, and Alaska among others have had these movements in recent modern times. I think though when they consider all the disadvantages of leaving the US to effectively be their own country they realize things would be much harder\worse for them on their own. It does bring good publicity to their cause and encourages a healthy debate. Cutting off your your nose to spite the face (did I get that metaphor correct?)
David
I could see where it would be difficult at first. The trick would be getting everyone in the state on the same wavelength. You sure couldn't have an entitlement mentality. Everyone would have to do their share. I think that alaska and texas would have the best chance of pulling it off. Another danger would be if they did get it up and running and were doing well, they would have to watch who they let in.
Ha the Sioux Nation delivered a message to Congress last summer declaring sovereignty and declaring the Treaty of 1868 null and void having been violated by the United States.....claiming ownership of South Dakota, NorthDakota, parts of Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and Idaho I believe and it never even made the friggin news. They call it the Republic of Lakotah. They were offering to let anybody who renounced their US citizenship to live there and be a free and full member. Nobody has paid them any attention at all..........
Unfortunately pam, that is the problem with sucession, you have to be willing to back it up when someone calls your bluff. Don't get me wrong here, I have a lot of respect for the Sioux Peoples, my grandmother was Lakota, and I have an aunt that is Oneida. What I see though is a lack of organization and preparedness on both the Sioux and on the States part. You can't just say "ok, thats it, we're pulling out of the union" and expect everyone to play by your rules, you have to be willing to fight for it.
I know...........boy I wish you all could hear what I am hearin right now :) My wolves are howling together...sounds like singin!
Well they're done and so am I ...have a good one yall
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on April 20, 2009, 09:56:53 PM
Unfortunately pam, that is the problem with sucession, you have to be willing to back it up when someone calls your bluff. Don't get me wrong here, I have a lot of respect for the Sioux Peoples, my grandmother was Lakota, and I have an aunt that is Oneida. What I see though is a lack of organization and preparedness on both the Sioux and on the States part. You can't just say "ok, thats it, we're pulling out of the union" and expect everyone to play by your rules, you have to be willing to fight for it.
Pam I just realized We Shall Remain is on.
Billy with your Native American background you may be interested in this PBS show on Native Americans as told from their perspective of history. There is a thread on it posted by W. Gray. (Waldo) I think you would find it interesting. A commercial is on now so I thought I would post this. I am on west coast time so it is probably over in your area.
David
Quote from: pam on April 20, 2009, 10:02:55 PM
I know...........boy I wish you all could hear what I am hearin right now :) My wolves are howling together...sounds like singin!
This is a little off topic. Thanks Pam you just broke my writer's block for a new poem. Wolves, the great weather I am having, I will post it in the poetry section when I am finished writing it.
David
The only indian background I have really is my grandmother, my aunt is by marriage. My aunt has really taught me alot about her people.
Pam-you keep wolves??
QuoteThis is a little off topic. Thanks Pam you just broke my writer's block for a new poem. Wolves, the great weather I am having, I will post it in the poetry section when I am finished writing it.
David
I'm glad I could help! LOL I'll have to go read it !
QuotePam-you keep wolves??
Yes We have two a male and a female. Actually the female is about 95% and the male is about 70, the female only howls but the male WILL bark once in a blue moon lol. Boo and Simon. Simons my best bud :)
This is an interesting topic. It got me to thinking (I know----you can probably smell the wood burning) about states seceding. A state such as California with the sixth largest economy in the world---yes, that's world----would or could be self sufficient having three major ports and a border with another country other than the U.S. California could keep all the other americans out if they wanted-------which it can't do now what with illegal immigration. It could support itself because of the major agriculture and manufactoring facilities located in the state------except we're broke according to Arnold. However, a state such as----------------------say-----------------------Kansas wanted to secede. Now you got a problem. No ports, totally surrounded by other states, and not really enough assets to support itself. But, its economy is probably in better shape than California. However, if someone in Oregon wanted to travel to Arizona, no problem, just swing a little east through Nevada and you are there. If someone in Nebraska wanted to go to Oklahoma, there's a problem.
I think there is something in my coffee this morning. I am being really silly today. Everybody have a great day!!!! Larryj
Maybe you just need a new coffeepot, larryj.
Let's see, little Delaware could charge tolls to anyone crossing our little corridor state to anyone headed north to Philly and New York or south to Baltimore and Washington. We would make out pretty well. We have a great port too, and plenty of seafood and agriculture to take care of ourselves. Then we could keep all our own taxes. We could spend it all here and not have to give any away to other states like we do now.
AHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS A NEW COFFEE POT. THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME SEE THE ANSWER TO MY PROBLEM. Whoops, gotta go. gotta get my granddaughter off to preschool. Later Larryj
Mine just needed a good cleaning job on the water reservoir part. Got the same out of the world feeling. Better than they say dope is.
Parting Company: The Road to Secession
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=95662
Is Secession 'Anti-American'?
In response to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's defense of states' rights, State Rep. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) says secession is anti-American. He even threw in a gratuitous race card to try to vilify the governor.
It should go without saying that the United States of America began with a series of thirteen secessions. The founding document of the American union is itself a collective "declaration of independence" that affirms unilateral secession to be part of our inalienable right of liberty. The U.S. Constitution (to which Rep. Dunnam has pledged an oath) affirms that the federal government's authority is both "enumerated" and "delegated," while the powers of the states are "reserved."
In other words, according to the Constitution, the states are the boss of the union, not the other way around. This is why leaders of the Texas state legislature, backed eloquently by Gov. Rick Perry, are reminding the bloated federal apparatus of its proper place as servant of the states. And Texas is not alone.
Furthermore, the United States has supported many secessions around the world.
Rest of the story:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/beane7.html
Imagine that a Demorat saying that the most American of ideas is anti american.
Of course it's up to Texas what they want to do, but don't rumblings of secession weaken our position in the world? Won't that potentially attract a terrorist element looking for "friends"?
Yes and no. they could see it as a sign of weakness, that the gov't is losing its control. Or they might see it as a warning, that the american people willing to stand up and fight, somehting that most terrorists don't want.
Wouldn't that be the American people fighting each other? That would be seen as a sign of weakness. That would be my biggest concern.
Suppose Texas did secede. Wouldn't most of the illegal immigrant problem be theirs? Are they big enough and have the facilities to handle it?
I'm done. I have had to correct almost everything I have typed this morning. My fingers have a mind of their own this morning.
I think the Texans could handle it fine if they were not held back by federal gov't.
You think?
Well, actually I know they could.
They why aren't they taking care of the situation instead of the federal government?
Darn, more mistakes. Sure couldn't pass a typing test now.
The gov't controls the Border Patrol. There were groups, not just in texas, that were privately organized. For safety reasons they had to stop.
The government controls the Border Patrol. And Texas lets them?
groups privately organized. For safety reasons they had to stop. Wonder what those safety reasons were? Couldn't be that they weren't professionally run.
Why can't Texas have it's own border patrol? Maybe they would have to raise taxes to pay for it?
The safety reasons were due to the fact of mexican viloence spreading to our border states. Unfortunetly civilians cannot own the same type of weapons that alot of criminals do, hence they were outgunned. That and the fact the Fed. limited their powers to simply observing and reporting the whereabouts of illegals trying to cross from mexico.
Sounds like the Texans have already lain down and let the Feds take over. Let the Feds do it. Give up some of our state's responsibilities so we can get more Fed money.
Texas used to defend it's borders. When did the Feds take over?
If Texas secedes, who is going to keep the illegals out of Texas?
When you give up your responsibilities you give up some of your freedom too, and if you are going to put a price tag on freedom, you don't deserve it.
Texas let the Fed take over when it agreed to enter into the union.
If Texas secedes, then Texans will keep out the illegals, hopefuly by any means necessary.
By not receiving any federal money or help and having to raise all the money itself. Is there enough oil in Texas to support it.
I don't know the numbers on it but I would wager that the money saved by not having to pay into the gov't would go a long way to support it.
I wouldn't bet on it. IMHO it will take everything Texas has to stop something that should have been stopped a long time ago. That's a lot of border there.
Just hope there is a lot of "good ole' boys Texans"... with a good eye......
And h ope that they can do it. We are not so far away.
I wouldn't worry too much about that wilma, they did it once before.
More on a parting of the ways.........
I often get mail from readers inquiring on what to do to advance the cause of secession in their respective locales. So I'd like to discuss a few ideas on how it has worked in the past and how it may work in the future. I would first dispose of the canard that it is traitorous or unpatriotic to consider this. Do you suppose our rulers in DC abide by the rule of law, see the Constitution (I prefer the DI) as a bedrock document and seek to respect the real diversity in America (not the silly race, class & gender motif)? That diversity is the vast gulf in tolerance for levels of government as opposed to governance. Government is the command and control apparatus to manipulate people through coercion and violence. The distinction is that governance can occur in a minarchist or stateless realm because it runs the gamut from forms of external control to the personal controls of one's own nature and relationship in society. Positive self-governance is the ability not only to do right by yourself but use your self-interest to serve others e.g., a business or voluntary work in a community and do them no harm. You have to ask whether your own philosophical ideas emanate from law or party; from conviction or the desire to get ahead at other people's expense. You have to pry out the deeper recesses of who you are to divine what your motivations are in your community. If you conclude that in order for you to get ahead in life, you must use the vicious power of government to achieve this, secession may not fit you. The new regime in town will see that your needs are answered...for a while. Until they run out of money or create a state so suffocating that 1984 looks like a resort lifestyle.
rest of the story-
http://lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert23.html
While the feds may or may not be able to stop a state from seceding, why would any state actually want to? I know, there are going to be those who feel that seceding would be a better way to live than under the thumb of the feds and the constitution. But, as I have pointed out somewhere on this forum, landlocked states couldn't survive and states such as those with a coast and heavy manufacturing and agriculture probably would have a better shot at it. I know I wouldn't be in favor of it. I wouldn't want to have to carry my passport just to visit my friends and relatives in Kansas!
I have read a lot about the Civil War since I have been retired. I have often wondered why the North (read feds) just didn't say goodbye and good riddance. The South's economy would have had a hard time surviving. Had the South not instigated incidents which were attacks on the Feds, they might not have been a war. If the South would have left well enough alone and tried to live in a separate environment taking care of themselves, things would have been different. Now don't get me wrong. The North was just as guilty of bad feelings. If there had been no attacks or violence, the South could have become a separate entity and if the North had not reciprocated in the acts of violence and just accepted the South as another country, they could have become trading partners and the South could have made it. When the South declared their sovereignty, the North said hey no you can't do that and the fight was on. This was a terrible war and in my mind a waste of people's lives. I would hope that if a state such as Texas would secede, there would not be a war over it. Hopefully we have learned from the last time.
Larryj
Yes, especially if Mexico decides to take Texas back. ;D
Uh...Hate to break this to you...But take a trip down Tay-Hahs way...The Mexicans have already taken back a huge portion of South Texas...Two of my close friends taught and are teaching in Texas...And you really need to have a working knowledge of how to speak Spanish in order to survive teaching down there. You also need to be able to pack in a lot of knowledge in a fairly short amount of time, as the rate of transiency is extremely high.
I'm sure that is very true. One of my friends is from El Paso, still has family there. He grew up totally bilingual because of the influence even then. Now he lives in Michigan, just a bit different. :D
Quote from: Catwoman on May 18, 2009, 06:39:37 PM
...And you really need to have a working knowledge of how to speak Spanish in order to survive teaching down there. You also need to be able to pack in a lot of knowledge in a fairly short amount of time, as the rate of transiency is extremely high.
That is pathetic. Those people need to be rounded up and sent back to mexico.
In whatever way it takes to do it too........... :police:
How can you round up American citizens and send them back to Mexico just because they are Hispanic and live in Texas? Some of those people have been citizens for generations. Illegals yes, citizens no!
If a person wants to be a citizen of a county they should learn how to speak the common language of that county.
Huh??? ??? ???
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on May 20, 2009, 07:05:59 PM
If a person wants to be a citizen of a county they should learn how to speak the common language of that county.
I spose you meant country right? I hear this argument all the time. I have bitched about it before myself, then I think about my own argument to it and feel like an idiot. The only reason English is the "common" language of this country is because they beat the french back to canada, bought most of the US off of Spain., and eliminated the original inhabitants.
"common" language kind depends on where you are from and what kind of neighborhood you live in. Hispanic neighborhoods...spanish is the common language. Same for any other ethnicity. Speaking more than one language USED to be considered an essential part of having a good education. We have regressed to the days when the establishment forbid children to speak in their native language for fear of severe punishment. We don't live in a "one" world anymore and we are gonna have to face that fact.
ALRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PAM IS BACK. OH HOW WE HAVE MISSED YOU. ;D ;D ;D ;D
You have a lot of catching up to do, so get to it and put your voice in there to help us or straighten us out.
Larryj
Welcome back Pam! We surely missed you! 8) 8) 8)
Yes, I meant Country. Sorry for the typo.
Heres the way I see it. English, for whatever reason, is the "common" language of America. It should be spoken by all citizens. It is one of the things that unites us as a country. If we are going to divide ourselves along cultural lines then the arguments against secession are thrown out. Catwoman brought up a good point that illustrates the problem with immigrants not willing to learn the language. Education is affected by a language barrier. She stated that teachers need to be able to pack in alot of knowledge in a short time due to transiency. I would think that this would be hampered by a lack of communication. I do not think that it is right or fair to ask teachers to learn a second language. They have enough to do.
Why should the Americans be forced to change their ways or language to make it easier on people coming into this country? It is not like we are begging or even asking them to come here. I am not saying that they can't speak their "native" language in their homes or amongst themselves. But I do expect them to learn english if they want to be considered American. I understand that we don't live in a "one" world anymore. But why should americans accept people who are not willing to conform, at least in part, to the common culture?
Actually Billy, at UD I had to take a language to get my degree in Education. I didn't have a choice. I took Spanish because I thought it would be more useful to me than French, German, Japanese or Russian. I was right. When Daddy was at KU he had to take German because it was "The language of science." Here, it's not that the Hispanics aren't willing to learn English, it just takes some time. ( I didn't wake up one day knowing how to speak Spanish either, it took a couple of years of classes.) Somebody has to be able to communicate with them in the meantime in Spanish, while they get a grip on English, which is a hard language to learn. When the crop pickers follow the crops, they are on the move often. It is hard on the kids' educations. Someday, if this country does declare English as our official language, that would be different but I don't see it happening soon. Even President Bush spoke passable Spanish. A Lot of people in the world take English as their foreign language as it is.
Like it or not, English is our heritage. And you don't need to
learn to speak Spanish in order to enjoy Mexican food.
Here's one by Illana Mercer about states' rights.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=98805
Oh I agree they should learn to speak English also same as I would learn the native language wherever I happened to be. It's a necessity to be able to get things done. I just think that all the hoopla about "We have to make English our "official" language" is so much bunk. The same people who bitch about the government stickin their noses in our business too much are shoutin for the GOVernment to declare an "official" language. That just makes me chuckle for real. You can't have it both ways. LOL
You CAN'T legislate freedom.......if it's legislated it AIN'T freedom it's the "official" position which makes it mandatory.
Isn't the language you speak part of "Freedom of Speech"? Of course, if you want to be understood, you will speak the common language.
Red, I'm just teasing, but why did you choose English as "our Heritage." If you go back far enough, you could have said the same thing but inserted Dutch, French, Spanish. I guess I'm more aware of it because Delaware has been here so long, and had a number of different explorers from several countries stuck their flag in parts of us at one time or another. As far as English goes, whose "English" do you want us to speak.? Some parts of our country have their own English with words and dialects that are so local that an outsider wouldn't understand them. But the average tourist wouldn't come in contact with it either. ;D
Diane, could you show me the Consititution that was written in french, spanish, dutch, or german? Or how about the Declaration of Independence? No....I didn't think so. The point being that Yes, there are people from various parts of the world that live here. However, we are united in the idea that we are all Americans, we do not set apart any one culture. If teachers are to speak spanish to make it easier on students then those same teachers should be required to speak every language of every nationality of every student they have.
Pam, please, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. We have to have rules in order to exist in a civilized society. But when a majority of people within a country want a law to be put in place then it should be. But let me play devils advocate for a minute, lets say that for whatever reason our gov't decides to start writing our laws in chinese, we can't really say anything because we don't have an "offical" language. I know that is extreme example.
The last part of your statement is kind of naive. Should the government choose to write laws in Chinese, I'm sure they would have already overridden any English-only requirement before hand. That is not a relevant reason to suggest a national language. Also, at this point if a national language is entertained, it should take into account the fact that a large portion of the population speaks Spanish. English may have been the primary language of the 13 colonies but it was not necessarily the primary language of the territories that were purchased or annexed.
You completely missed the point of my post. I understand that a large portion of our population speaks spanish, but not the majority. A large portion of our country is also not christian, perhaps we should adopt Sharia law?
I saw your point, just thought it displayed faulty logic. And the christian remark is irrelevant, we are not discussing religion in this thread and if we were I would say that neither Christian legal nor Sharia law should be adopted. Also, the point of my statement regarding who spoke Spanish and the roots of other languages in this country is that you should not choose to change something that has NEVER existed formally, a national language.
Jerry, just out of curiosity, can you tell us what the languages of the various annexations or purchases was? It really sounds interesting to me and I will admit that it had never occurred to me. For instance, what was the language of Kansas when the territory was purchased? The Louisiana Purchase, I think. Could you do this real soon? Just for me if for no other reason.
Billy, ya missed my point. "OUR Heritage" here could have been much different if the Dutch and Swedes had kept their hands on their Delaware colonies. The English were only part of the colonists here. New Sweden had a council form of government, I'm not positive, but I think the Dutch did too. I'm certainly in favor of how things turned out finally, but it could have turned out differently. English was just one of a number of languages in the early days.(1630s) I don't think the Dutch and Swedes tossed out their national tongue overnight. Frankly, even English has changed dramatically over the years. Did you ever read any Shakespeare? Also look at the number of Spanish and French words we use as part of English. If English ever became our national language, would we toss them out? Really, I was just teasing and I still am....but...
Wilma, Good question. I think I would guess German was widely spoken, and some French too, but not necessarily as the primary language. I'll bet Jerry will find out.
Quote from: jerry wagner on May 22, 2009, 11:51:12 AM
Also, the point of my statement regarding who spoke Spanish and the roots of other languages in this country is that you should not choose to change something that has NEVER existed formally, a national language.
If we never sought to change something that NEVER existed, we wouldn't be Americans, we would still be a bunch of British colonies.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 22, 2009, 03:18:15 PM
Billy, ya missed my point. "OUR Heritage" here could have been much different if the Dutch and Swedes had kept their hands on their Delaware colonies.
I am not talking about what could've been, I am talking about what is.
Let me ask ya'll a question. Should it be up to the employer to find a way to communicate with the employees or the other way around? When I worked at Rubbermaid in winfield a very large portion of the workforce was Laotian. Almost all of them professed not to speak english. I was working on a particular line one night, one that I hadn't worked on before, I was the only white person on that line. I asked one of my co-workers a question, he replied by saying, "no, no, no speak english". This must mean something different in laotian because the rest of them started laughing. This pissed me off. So I said to him, "well, if you don't speak english then you won't get mad if I call you a cocks@#$r?" all of a sudden he spoke english. When I was working at Skyline I saw a mexican come in to an interview with his son, whom he brought to translate, he got upset when he was told that if he couldn't speak, read, or write english then they couldn't hire him. When this got around the plant alot of folks got upset saying that he wasn't hired simply because he was mexican.
And yes, I have read Shakespeare. One of my favorite quotes..."this above all, to thine own self be true."
As my German friend at work said when she interviewed for her job, I thought you were looking for someone to use their hands not to talk. She got the job and made one good employee for 40 years.
Okay, and if talking becomes a necessary part of that job, what then??
Quote from: jerry wagner on May 22, 2009, 10:13:34 AM
The last part of your statement is kind of naive. Should the government choose to write laws in Chinese, I'm sure they would have already overridden any English-only requirement before hand. That is not a relevant reason to suggest a national language. Also, at this point if a national language is entertained, it should take into account the fact that a large portion of the population speaks Spanish. English may have been the primary language of the 13 colonies but it was not necessarily the primary language of the territories that were purchased or annexed.
Your ignoring the fact in order to become a American Citizen, you have to speak and read ENGLISH! :)
That is a requirement.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on May 23, 2009, 03:17:32 AM
Okay, and if talking becomes a necessary part of that job, what then??
We shouldn't have to adapt to another language inside the borders in our country. English is and has been the primary language since the country has been founded. up until the 90's i suspect immigrants learned the language and kept their native tounge alive in their homes but when interacting with the public they used english.
What has happened is Progressives have divided the country into pockets of ethnic groups instead of bringing them together as Americans. Think about it. They studied their bible history well. Remember the tower of bable? God scrambled the common language up and no one spoke the common language and divided the people and made it so they couldn't accomplish their intended goal.
It worked then 4000 years ago and its working now in this day and age.
To add an anecdote to this thread, my daughter-in-law is Chinese born in Hong Kong. She came here at a very young age. She is one of the most talented, witty, intelligent, and beautiful people I know. She speaks perfect English with no trace of an accent and still maintains her Chinese heritage and language when she feels it is necessary. When we first met her, we were talking about schools and asked how she did in high school. She replied that she was an "A" student and followed that up with the comment "I'm Asian aren't I". She does have one failing with her native language in that she can't read it or write it. However, my wife and I enjoy Chinese food as well as other ethnic foods and when we go to Chinatown in LA it is a pleasure to have her along as she just orders everything for us in Chinese so the waiter gets the order straight and I think we get a little more attention because she is "one of them".
As far as a national language, I don't see that as a solution to anything much. We should probably focus on telling immigrants that it is to their benefit to learn and speak English and to raise their children to do the same. I think this would be the way to go instead of requiring teachers to learn another language. I live in a widely diversified area where according to the demographics the latino population is almost the majority. Which begs the question----being a white anglo saxon protestant in the minority will I be eligible for all those benefits that were set aside for minorities over the years?
Larryj
So what happens to the immigrants that don't teach their children english? More taxpayer money is spent on them in order to fund their education. With a public education system that is struggling I feel that this is a waste of money. Money that could be used for students who do speak the language, who are citizens.
What happens? They lose. If you are a child of an immigrant (legal or not) and your parent does not insist you learn English, you lose. If you don't take it upon yourself to learn English, you lose. If you don't learn English you might not be able to go to school and get an education and the means to support yourself, so you lose. If you give up on school and run the streets you might have to join a gang for your own safety and that might get you put in prison or shot, so you definetly lose. So the obvious answer here is to tell the immigrant to learn English and teach it to the rest of the family, or they will all lose.
Larryj
Frankly, around here non English speaking immigrants don't have to teach their kids English, there is a point in kids lives when they absorb languages like a sponge. It has to do with how the brain develops. They pick up conversational English pretty quickly, reading and writing and all the tenses and spelling oddities take longer. The kids go home and teach the family adults.
Hey Billy, what's the excuse for adult American citizens who know they don't know the difference between "there and their" and still don't bother to learn it. All that stuff can be looked up, but nobody bothers,...and it's free! Shoot, I have adult friends who still don't know their right hand from their left. As adults, don't they have some responsibility too? ;D ;D ;D
As adults, don't they have some responsibility too?
Well, it's about time you're recognizing those real questions. We need more of that.
Quote from: larryJ on May 23, 2009, 12:03:07 PM
What happens? They lose. If you are a child of an immigrant (legal or not) and your parent does not insist you learn English, you lose. If you don't take it upon yourself to learn English, you lose. If you don't learn English you might not be able to go to school and get an education and the means to support yourself, so you lose. If you give up on school and run the streets you might have to join a gang for your own safety and that might get you put in prison or shot, so you definetly lose. So the obvious answer here is to tell the immigrant to learn English and teach it to the rest of the family, or they will all lose.
Larryj
We can't tell them to learn english, and then have no way to enforce it. And we can't enforce it without making it law. And it is not just them that lose, the rest of the country loses also in the form of increased welfare and educational costs.
Diane, theres is no excuse for ignorance. What passes for public education in this country is a joke. We have lowered the standard in order to increase our schools ratings. We have placed an more of an emphasis on sports then math and english and the fine arts. Just because 99% of a senior class graduates is nothing to be proud of when 95% of them are jock-brained dumbasses.
Building new schools with federal involvment ought not be.
Growing with the Fed's is the wrong direction for sure.
That would be more on sports than math.
thats the best you could come up....a typo?
I was only saying I don't think it should be a law. Like you said how would you enforce it? Off the top of my head, without researching it, I don't know of any country that has a law stating you must learn their language if you are going to live there. I would think it would be in the best interest of an immigrant to learn the local language in order to survive. If I were to move to France, I would definitely make it a point to learn French in order to live better. I am curious now that this subject has come up-- are the applications for citizenship printed in English or the immigrants native language? And how did we get to this subject from state sovereignty or succession? ??? ???
Larryj
Probably not, but I want to be nice.
Billy, as for education, that might have been more sports than meth! ;D Billy you are generalizing again! There are indeed pockets in this country that do have poor education.( yes, I believe states should have control) Much of the lower south, part of the mid west, pockets in cities....because the expectation is that EVERYONE should get the same education. Some kids today who are still in school, pulling the averages down, in my generation and before, would have dropped out around 8th grade. You think it's easy trying to teach someone who has a totally different agenda? I'd be happy if we could have tough 8th grade tests and then if you didn't pass, too bad, you're out. It sure would have made my job easier. In areas of the country where most kids don't go on to college, keeping kids in high school can be tough because there is no incentive to succeed. And dumbing down education? I totally agree. Try working with a parent begging for their son's grade to be raised because he's the football jock and won't be able to apply for a football scholarship if he's dropped from the team for bad grades. "We" the teachers, didn't drop the standards, the parents in the 70s demanded it! At the same time the top keeps moving up, for the kids who will take advantage of it. There were no AP classes when I was in school. One of my friends' sons took enough AP classes in High School to graduate from UD a year early...quite a cost savings for the family. He now works at Aberdeen Proving Ground with an income I could just dream of. I know some kids don't need college and college isn't for everyone, but teachers have a lot of competition from the big world out there. When the biggest thing in some kids' lives is their cell phone and texting, and parents allow it, the poor teacher becomes a real meanie. I work very closely with our elementary and middle Charter Schools. We hope to soon build a high school. No federal or state money will be used to build it, any more than was for the two existing schools. The kids there really want to learn, the parents are very involved and they win top prizes quite often. As we speak there is an Odyssey of the Mind trophy, sitting on the counter in the front office. We recently built an big picnic pavilion for outdoor classes and such and the 8th grade parents got together and raised money to buy 16 big picnic tables to put in it That can also be a profit center for the school, as will the two basketball courts Al and I supervised the building of last week. We also met with the striping company rep. and laid out 4 four square, three hop scotch, the snail, and a center toss 4 square. The kids will think they are playing, but every one works different muscles and helps with balance. All in all, if parents and teachers have a good relationship, most any child can get an education appropriate to their needs. I expect you keep in close contact with your kids teacher, so you know how they are doing? By the way, our paper this week had a list of merit scholarship winners from Newark High School....not too shabby! Why don't you get together with other like minded parents and build a charter school for your kids? The building cost is on you, your tax money pays for the teachers and you get to interview and choose them. Ya can't lose!
Okay, I went and looked at the citizenship thingie. In order to become a citizen you must be able to speak, read, and write English. Not so for visas or green cards. However, for those you must provide your own interpreter. And, one reviewer of the website I was looking at said the "speaking English thing" was a farce. You only have to be able to say a few words in English to pass the test. I don't know that this is true. I think not because if you have to read it and write it you probably would speak more than a few words. So, I stopped looking and had a late breakfast and enjoyed a phone call from my son in Thailand which included a camera so we could see him and our daughter-in-law! How wonderful is that?
Larryj
That is wonderful indeed. I'd like to see Thailand too. My nephew liked it and all the history and old buildings.
Diane, I see your point on education. We completely disagree on the dropout thing though. I don't think that not allowing a student to remain in school because they didn't pass a test is the answer. Given the laziness of alot of students, I think that this would just create alot of dropouts. If we want to root out ignorance we have to start in the home, with the root cause. My incentavie to succeed in school usually came in the form of a size 13 boot applied to my postieror. When I complained about it my dad had a saying, "don't worry son, when applied at the right angle and with the proper amount of force, my foot will fit in your ass, if that is what it takes." Parents (or Parent, if that is the situation) need to take a more active role in their childrens education. This doesn't mean advocating that their child be allowed to pass to the next grade just because they are the school sports hero. I think that if a child wants to play sports they should have to maintain at least a B average. Thats the way it is with my kids anyway. And I will be damned if I am getting my kids a cell phone. Except for my daughter when she is allowed to date.
I wasn't really serious about the 8th grade tests, but I have to admit it did cross my mind a time or two. ;D I do agree with you on most of what you say, but I just can't agree with physically hurting kids to make them behave. I'm just not wired to think that way. No cell phone for your kids Now? Well, aren't you an old meanie! ;D ;D ;D Good! I wish I had a way of getting more willing parent involvement. Most were great and some I still see from time to time but it always seemed that the very parents I really needed to see the most were slippery as eels. No phone, wouldn't answer the door, never showed up for parent conferences, never responded to letters or messages sent or mailed home registered mail. The principal couldn't do anything either. Very sad.
Here in California the state has decided to administer a "proficiency" test to seniors in high school to determine if they know enough to graduate. I am not really in favor of this as there are those who can graduate, but maybe could not pass the test. I think they should be allowed to graduate if their grade point average is suffiecient. At least they didn't drop out and made it all the way to the end. I am amazed at the websites that talk about the knowledge children needed to know to graduate 150 years ago. I could not have graduated under those standards. In my school days, my mother was a teacher and even my teacher in the eighth grade (one room school house). So I had the advantage of that and never an option of dropping out. These days when both parents have to work in order to live and provide for their families, the parental involvement suffers. And the children suffer.
BTW, we insisted on getting our daughter a pager when she began to hang out with her friends with the instructions not to ignore calls from us. After that both of our children got cell phones on their own and then convinced us to get one so we could keep in touch. Now I don't know what I would do without my cell phone (use the landline like I used to), my microwave (heat it in the oven), our color television(had a 13" B&W with two television stations that were on from 4 PM until 11:30 PM, when the flag was projected onto the screen and national anthem was played), my car with all the computer controlled gizmos (rather than sitting on the fender with my feet planted next the engine while changing the spark plugs).
Larryj
Origins of the Educational Nightmare
Destroying the Republic: Jabez Curry And the Re-education of the Old South
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson21.html
QuoteParents (or Parent, if that is the situation) need to take a more active role in their childrens education. This doesn't mean advocating that their child be allowed to pass to the next grade just because they are the school sports hero. I think that if a child wants to play sports they should have to maintain at least a B average. Thats the way it is with my kids anyway. And I will be damned if I am getting my kids a cell phone. Except for my daughter when she is allowed to date.
WOW somthin the liberal leftwing berry eatin hippie(ohyeah and kumbyya singin) and you agree on :P My daughter got a cell phone this year...she is seventeen, dating and going places with friends and it's worth the peace of mind it gives me.
QuoteThese days when both parents have to work in order to live and provide for their families, the parental involvement suffers. And the children suffer.
That's only true if the parents LET it be Larry. I was a single parent till my boys were about 12 and 13 and always managed to make school interest a priority. When I got married again I still worked and dropping out was NEVER an option for my boys and still isn't for my daughter, I worked her whole life up until last year when I lost my construction job. It just takes a little extra effort is all and it's worth it when they turn out to great people.