Not "OUR" military, no. His "military", you better believe it!
Posted on 09/19/2009 12:35:23 AM PDT by A Navy Vet
The DC politicos are pushing us Constitutionalists towards revolution. I'm not yet sure what form it will take. I'm hoping it will simply be about States' Rights (9th&10th Amendments) and enough States' willingness to nullify Fedgov mandates.
If enough States were to just tell the Fedgov to shove their socialist/Marxist programs, what would the DC politicians do? What would Obama do, given all his power?
I don't think for a moment that the White House would turn the military on any State that said NO to Obamacare or to Cap&Tax or any other socialist crap they're pushing.
So what would be the Fedgov's response? Cut off Federal funds? Well, some States like Texas, have refused some of those sovereignty killing funds, already. Many other States have legislation pending, or have already passed resolutions re-stating their sovereign rights. I believe it to be something like 34 States in total.
So what would be DC's recourse if the "Individual States" just said NO more and don't abide by the Fedgov mandates? I say NOTHING! This is not the era of the Civil War. The military and the National Guard would NOT kill their own family members in this day if ordered to do so. I don't believe it for a second.
The Fedgov would just have to back off. All those impotent corrupt self-serving politicos in Washington would have no other option other than to deny a State of Federal funds. Some States are willing to chance that and live with that.
States' rights is the way out of this mess. Read your Constitution. Everyone talks about the 10th Amendment, but it only re-enforces the 9th ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People").
So, there are two (2) Amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing the People their final authority. One speaks about the States AND the People and one to the People and thereby extension to their States, not to mention the original "intent" of limited federal government by the FF's in the Federalist Papers, essays, personal correspondence, publications, etc.
A MILLION or so people showing up in DC on September 12th was a great start, but it had NO focus. It was simply about "we don't different big stuff". We need to NOW give them Constitutional specifics. If the Marxists don't accept the original intent of the Constitution and States' rights and keep pushing their arguments for a "living document" and against States' sovereignty, then game on.
Until then, States' Rights should be seriously considered as the argument and rallying cry. It's obvious individual rights are no longer pertinent unless you exist within the PC spectrum.
State’s “rights” without the acknowledged right of secession is just an illusion.
I believe that a good place to start would be to have an amendment that would limit the number of times a person can run for the senate and the house local and federal. When these men and women get in politics and are there for 10-50 years they become entrenched and part of the problem. Then after that take away their retirement or tie it to Social Security that way they are not a drain on the national debt. Where I work we get 25 dollars for each year of employment and then we have to chose to have it paid out for 10 or 15 years. Not these golden retirements until the day they die.
Secession ain't going to happen, but State nullification of Fedgov laws could happen, providing the State Governors have the fortitude and care more about the US Constitution than their political careers.
While we would think that to be the death of a Governor, there are many States that would love for their Governor to tell DC to pound sand. It's growing.
Clearly .. SOMETHING is going to have to be done.
These “Rulers” are at the point of saying .. “To hell with what the people want, we are going to do what WE WANT” anyway.
I don’t even know if there will ever be enough States telling the Feds to, “Shove It” because it all comes down to .. “What’s In It For ME”?
Corruption and out-right Greed is what has and is doing us, the regular folks in!
Until and Unless .. ‘WE The People’ rise up and Take our country back from the despots .. America as we know/knew it is finished!
Sovereignty means the right to act as ultimate judge in all disputes, which means sovereignty is necessarily indivisible. True state's rights, the right to decide an issue with finality, is just another name for sovereignty.
10th and now 9th Amendment ~~~ PING ~~~
You are kidding right? Name a state that can exist without federal dollars, maybe Alaska but just barely because they would have trouble with a population who wouldn’t be receiving the coveted dividends check.
This states rights kick is a nice message without any leverage. States claim they can withhold federal taxes, etc. Honestly, I think not! For example, the government would go after vulnerable populations, like those dependent on Medicare dollars, what would a state do? There are also lots of federal dollars in education, so old people and kids would suffer the most /sarc. Like it or not, the states are beholden to the govt and the Fed.
There is a VERY SIMPLE way to effect this: repeal the 17th Amendment. No way do senators dependendent on state legislatures for their appointments turn around and put mandates on them. The Founding Fathers had federalism right and the 20th Century politicos were wrong again.
Agreed. Even before the civil war, long before the federal government started expanding out of control, I don’t think the state nullification principal ever really stuck.
One of my points about State sovereignty.
"I imagine that any state's rejection of Obamacare would have a similar result. At best. Some states tried to do away with Federal mandates in 1861 and it ended badly."
Sorry guy or gal, you lost me there. That was a different time when everyone was ready to fight at the drop of the hat. This is now, and I say that the Fedgov won't have the stomach to send troops into any State that nullifies Fedgov directives.
If nothing else, and I hate to say it, but the punks in DC don't have cojones to push some 40 million gun owners who are just about fed up with their BS anyway.
Ain't gonna happen and there need be NO civil war or armed revolution against the Fedgov. All it will take, is enough States to say NO! We don't accept your Obamacare nor your Tax&Spend nor your other socialist/communist programs. We are keeping our taxes to ourselves. Good bye. Whatcha gonna do? Kill us? Ain't going to happen.
Again, think "jury nullification".
A tenth this number, at the most. That's my judgement from the video and images I've seen.
"It seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them." - Machiavelli
Here come those crazy right-wing “tenthers” again. :)
Not "OUR" military, no. His "military", you better believe it!
And so it's impossible to get out from beneath the Fedgov hold.?
Not sure if you've kept up, but there were a few Governors who fought against accepting Stimulus Money. They weren't able to hold their ground because the State legislative bodies wanted the bucks. But again, my point is that would be a jumping off point.
That is in fact the problem. The FedGov can't order a state to implement Obamacare. That would be shot down in court.
But what the FedGov does, is to use matching funds or Federal dollars to incent states to follow it's whims. A state that refuses to follow the Fedgov lead still gets taxed, but then doesn't get any of the money back.
What you would need to fight this is enough states sue the Fedgov for the use of matching funds and federal incentives on issues reserved to the states. They would have to make the case that the Federal taxing/incentives have become so common/onerous on the states, that the Fedgov has effectively usurped state's rights.
I agree with you to a point, except, the average American doesn't understand the entricacies of your point. However, they ARE starting to understand the complete control that the Fedgov wants over their lives. That is a much bigger issue.
I heard a lot of that same sort of stuff when some southern states were resisting the Civil Rights Act in the sixties. Both the Airborne and the National Guard responded when the Federal government told them to. And trust me, the majority of the Airborne troops who were serving at that time were from the southern states. Repeal the 17th, and put senate seats back into the hands of state legislatures. Anything else and you just have the Fed federalize the guard, do what they like, and tell you to sit on, it 40 million gun owners or not.
Regards
It reach its peak in the Webster-Haynes debate between Webster and Calhoun's protege Charles Haynes. It is best remembered for Webster's phrase: 'Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable.'
You folks are not getting my point. Not only does Obambi & Co. not have the stones to send the military to a given State for their revolt against DC intrusion, they don't have the stones to politically fight against the States (providing enough States join in the nullification - I'm thinking 5 or 6).
I am fully aware of governors who did this and how their respective states legislated around the issue and got the money. There is no jumping off point. No state is self- sustainable, not even in practical ways like electricity and communications. I imagine the govt would turn off our electricity and comm if we got too uppity.
As long as net federal payouts to the states remain intact...so does the union.....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm
The above is coming to an end...when the Federal bond market ends...the payouts will cease...
You make my point, except for the "sue" part. I'm saying that the "individual states" governors should tell DC to stick their mandates up their DC collective bottoms AND stop sending their State dollars to Washington. Yes, I know that it is much more complicated and involves commerce, but if a few States took that position, the DC career politicians would pee in their pants and possibly stop their push towards Marxism.
I wrote this article and responding to yours and other posts because I DON'T want to see a second revolution, which would probably be quashed nowadays.
If we can convince enough State Governors to say NO to DC mandates, maybe, just maybe, DC will get the message.
Other than that, there is going to be sh&t load of Patriots die in the next (5) years, possibly for nothing. The reason I say for nothing, is they may be armed but they are not organized. Even your local SWAT team could take them out.
I know reality when I see it. I've lived too many years.
Actually, I have read much about Texas, and they could be "self-sustainable". Plus, they have a Governor who is fed up with the Feds.
Yes, I understand a district, region, even State can be turned off from the national grid. You really think that would happen if push came to shove? I highly doubt it.
You're dreaming. If anything were to lead to the second revolutionary war, it would be that. They know this. They wouldn't dare turn off our electricity. Never happen, but other things will happen in increments so we boil in the pot with the frog.
Wouldn’t dare? Really? Look again at the lights in N Korea and tell me again that a tyrant or tyrannical gov’t wouldn’t turn off access to power. Or, look to our own California with it’s irrigation system turned off to save a fish.
Texas, a state which is dependent on Oil/ refinery dollars & agricultural dollars, not self- sustainable. Look again. Who would the state of TX trade with?
Look up some siege warfare, particularly that of the Roman Empire and tell me again they wouldn’t dare. Every major siege offensive starts with cutting off life’s necessities. They are continually speaking about “updating the electrical grid”. Every country in which we have a major offensive has the “infrastructure” theme. Wouldn’t it make sense to lay ground work that can be accessed in a time of need by those in power?
Heck, in California, people already have rolling blackouts.
The 10th and the 9th amendment need to be used by the states and the people. to say NO!.
But don’t forget the 15th. no not the 15th amendment, April 15th. Move tax day to election day and eliminate payroll withholding. We’ll all cut a check on election day and then vote. It will take less than the 6 years to vote the last senator out for the whole mess to clean itself up.
There is power in DC used against we the people because we the people send it there, and then are stupid enough to believe that our congress gives it to us. Eliminating the tax on the lower class doesn’t help.
Sending your tax dollars to the federal government is like sending a bottle of whiskey to Ted Kennedy. He’ll give it back to you, only after he filters it through his kidneys.
I need to work the analogy, because it just doesn’t have the same ‘ring’ with Ted gone.
I hope Florida Just Says No!
Interesting article and possibly relevant to the timing that states should be very focused on. The whole stimulus house of cards is based on a very risky assumption that the economy will rebound excessively. If that doesn’t happen then the money from the feds dries up leaving the states high and dry. The feds may try to “fix” this by raising taxes significanty or printing more money to give to states. More strings will be attached to this money and it goes on and on.
When you consider the money it seems inevitable that a showdown between free states and the federal government will occur. Hopefully, state leaders are looking at this in depth, laying the groundwork, and looking for the most strategic time to nullify and deny federal taxes.
Interesting article and possibly relevant to the timing that states should be very focused on. The whole stimulus house of cards is based on a very risky assumption that the economy will rebound excessively. If that doesn’t happen then the money from the feds dries up leaving the states high and dry. The feds may try to “fix” this by raising taxes significanty or printing more money to give to states. More strings will be attached to this money and it goes on and on.
When you consider the money it seems inevitable that a showdown between free states and the federal government will occur. Hopefully, state leaders are looking at this in depth, laying the groundwork, and looking for the most strategic time to nullify and deny federal taxes.
If enough states just say “no way” to this rubbish, it will put Obama in a corner.If he calls out Federal troops he will start the next civil war and he hasn’t the stones for it. Congress hasn’t either.
Any connection between this Missouri Senator and the Depression-era WPA muralist of the same name?
Yeah but the problem that I see with your approach is that it is basically calling for a revolution.
The states don’t control the dollars going to the Fed’s now, so how are the governors going to magically pull the plug? Your solution requires millions of individuals, businesses and federally chartered banks to unilaterally defy the feds and stop sending taxes. To my knowledge, there are no state dollars that go to the Feds just individual and business taxes.
The Feds would simply pick them off one by one making examples until the rest fall in line and the Feds wouldn’t even feel the impact.
I think the legal approach is the correct one. The judicial branch has acted to protect state rights before where the Feds were too direct in their approach. If the states ban together and demonstrate that Fed use of incentives and matching funds usurp state rights, maybe the judiciary will ban the practice all together.
None of that is going to happen.
Great Uncle.
Thanks. As much of a history buff and as political as I am, I’m far more familiar with Thomas Hart Benton, noted WPA muralist.
I graduated school with a fine arts degree, did some outside college credit work in exhibitions practicum, and became familiar with the art collection at Reynolda House, the former estate of R. J. Reynolds, as a result.
The museum has a couple of beautiful examples of Benton’s work in their collection of American art, most prominently “Bootleggers,” from 1927.
http://www.uwm.edu/Course/448-192-001/benton.jpg
Senator Benton was the champion of Westward expansion, for decades. He is generally considered as one of the leading Senators of his time, and is the only one of them not known for his position on Slavery. I haven’t looked it up, but since Missouri was a a slave state he likely was generally in line with the South.
He may have been, or maybe not, if NC serves as any example. This state was torn by regional factions, eastern being heavily pro-slavery, Piedmont being pro-slavery but not diehard about it, and mountain being adamantly opposed, almost to the point of trying to break off and re-form the Free State Of Franklin again. The state of West Virginia arose from similar sentiments in Virginia.
of course in the Webster Haynes debate on nullification he was with Haynes.
In my admittedly limited understanding of this particular aspect of U.S. history, could this not be attributed to a “deal” made between south, and then-southwest? Oppose the tariff with us, and we’ll support westward expansion for you? Slavery would have been peripheral to such a scenario.
Who knows? If I run into Senator Benton I’ll ask him. Obviously no one asked him if he had made a corrupt bargain at the time.
My apologies for annoying you. It appeared you had an interest in the topic, and I was engaging you in your interest; an apparent mistake on my part. It won’t happen again.
The Westward movement is not a special interest on my part, [partially because it is a success story which is not a live issue]. However, I did not mean to be dismissive, I should not have left out the LOL I had intended to post. Benton is generally viewed as entirely a proponent of an issue which is virtually irrelevant to our times. Interestingly his son in law was the explorer John C. Fremont, first GOP presidential candidate.
I looked a little further into his Wiki biography and see that at the end he turned against slavery, which is why he lost his Senate seat after 30 years in the Senate. He remained a Democrat, opposing his son in law’s election in the year he died.
Can't do that in Texas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
