Posted on 01/31/2009 5:41:20 AM PST by Jim Noble
I wrote this for the Arthur McGowan thread, which was (correctly) pulled. I am writing as an observer, NOT as an advocate. I dread insurrection and civil war, and I pray daily for our nation to be spared those horrors.
However, talk is in the air. What follows is my opinion about circumstances which MIGHT engender such a horror.
In order for there to be a real war (in the United States), both sides must be morally certain that they are correct, based on equally plausible interpretations of the Constitution. If this is not so, then the military will not split, and the side the military chooses will win.
Despite the passions regarding abortion, I don't see it as such a circumstance. If the pro-life side is driven to violence, they will just be crushed.
I think the war will come if and when Soetero and Reid use the treaty power and their interpretation of the Supremacy clause to overturn the sovereignty of the People of the United States. The Court will overturn Reid v. Covert 5-4, based on "an evolving society" since 1957, and each side will have a perfectly rational and defensible position based on the plain language of the Constitution. You cannot reconcile the Supremacy clause and the structure of the government otherwise laid out in the Constitution. If the treaty power is used to overturn the rights of the People, either the Supremacy clause or the Constitution itself will fall.
This issue is big enough to split the army. Soetero IS the commander-in-chief. Officers ARE commissioned by him, and serve at his pleasure. They ARE bound to follow his (legal) orders.
When he enacts and the Senate ratifies a treaty to disarm the People (for example), and the Supreme Court overturns Reid v. Covert because it conflicts with the Supremacy clause, officers will be in a real bind.
Some will understand, some won't.
THAT'S a formula for real war.
Perhaps it would be better to start at a state by state level, if memory serve me right the left howled the loudest when people were talking about states leaving the Union.
Which state would have the biggest impact, or the most logical?
ping
CA secedes to Mexico. Good riddance. Where can we get New Jersey, NY, and Massachusets to go? The Canadians wont take the losers.
If they turn their backs on him how will he enforce it?
And no, I don't think it would result in Civil War.
It's stupid talk, frankly. The situation you describe is interesting, but you're forgetting a most basic fact: Reid and company are too damned old and lazy to get into what you describe. Far easier to get what they want gradually while working inside the system. They've gotten this far doing that, why on earth would they bother to turn the table over with this sudden power grab? There's no need for it. Like the frog in the kettle of water with the heat turned on gradually, with the help of President Bush's misguided expansion of so many social programs, they have their road map to achieve what they want without overt attacks on our liberties--they'll just do it nice and quiet-like.
Doubt it. There are less and less Dems and Pubs. About 1/3 each of the population. A new political Party will beat them out.
Texas
The spark isn't the issue. The issue is the tinder.
The supremacy clause, read a certain way, negates the rest of the Constitution.
That reading, although it doesn't make much sense, is perfectly defensible and logical. And there are Leftist opinions all over the web which support exactly that interpretation.
If the Constitution is going to go down, I believe there will be a fight, and that the military will split.
That's all I'm saying.
Alright talk about secession. It is our real only leverage against them short of massive protesting.
And the author really points out the big issue. The military. The point is to be strict constructionists of the Constitution in order to gain military support.
Texas Alaska the midwest, Florida and the rest of the south could make a movement with 15 states or so to split from the Nation and take OUR Constitution with us. We agree to share the military and vital services.
While a break up of the USA is a very bad idea, I bet it would get results.
I don’t think so. We’re too ideologically mixed by location in this country. The red state / blue state model is useless in picking sides because of it’s inaccuracies.
For instance, my “blue state” of Michigan has 83 counties but only something between 7 and 10 of those are reliably democrat. Those blue counties are full of people who can’t care for themselves without taxpayer funded municipalities.
Also there’s the ideological mixing of families to take into account. My family is mostly liberal to moderate to conservative but we are a close knit family. Before some moron comes along to tell me that my liberal relatives will happily ship me off to a death camp, they should mind their own business and worry about the obvious problems within their own family.
Sound reasoning, but now we've got a young man in a hurry in the mix, and the AGW scam is collapsing almost day-by-day.
Commies are infatuated with a vision of history which includes a "seize the moment" fantasy. If Soetero starts to feel things slipping away, he may do just that. "The enemy increaseth every day, and we, at the height, are ready to decline".
We are living in dangerous times.
You actually paint the picture correctly. The plan is to bring the nation down from within and to do it without firing a shot.
It’s already well underway. Witness the spending spree in one fell swoop: $1 trillion.
And more to come.
Socialism through economy/nation wrecking. That is the plan.
First of all, I’d estimate that 90% of the masses, especially the Obama supporters, don’t have a clue what you’re saying when you talk about the “interpretation of the Supremacy clause to overturn the sovereignty of the People of the United States.” As long as the sheeple are kept fed, warm and dry they will remain as docile as a whipped puppy.
I don’t think that a war will arise out of the masses taking up arms and choosing sides.
I think that the probable scenario will be a military coup followed by a true civil war when the overthrow try to put up a token resistance. This probably won’t last more that 30 days.
Of course, all of this hinges on just how hard Zero and his commie puppet masters are willing to trample on the Constitution and just how sincere the military officers were when they took the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.
Great point, which is why it's such an attractive fantasy for the young--if we could just get together like we do at an outdoor concert, we could take care of EVERY problem in a weekend! Wheeee!
I suspect their intent is to provoke any kind of 'uprising' so they can declare 'martial law'. There are millions upon millions who believe their time of suffering is over. Bama nor a liberal Congress can fulfill the promises made and right now the liberals need cover which is why they are seeking Republican Senate cover.
The majority of Americans are not going to know 'supremacy clause', but they will recognize $500 bucks, more food stamps and extensions in unemployment checks is not what they were promised. Few of these that voted for liberalism hear Bama saying 'sacrifice', or the economy is worse than he knew.... Liberals lied to these people and soon they will figure that out. I am not interested in being a tool for the liberals to get to where they want to go.
I didn’t see the Arthur McGowan thread, so I am in the dark as to what was proposed as the grounds for a possible civil war.
What I see unfolding now is a very slowly developing set of possibilities that may already take a year or more to settle in place and begin to show signs of damage we think will come or the “renewal” Obama says will come. The House Republicans need to continue to show the principle they did in rejecting PORKULUS. Unfortunately, they will get minimal coverage for the reasons WHY they oppose the PORKULUS package. The MSM still wants Obama to “win”, so they will make it look like a stubborn partisan thing emananting from the Republicans, not the other way around. It was clear from the beginning that the Dems didn’t need the Republicans to pass the bill, so they loaded it with their 40 years-wish-list, as everyone has pointed out by now. As such, it comes off as an unprecedented power grab by them, using, as usual,generations of , now and in the distant future. Whether the Dems will modify it to remove the obvious Big Government pork which only serves THEIR ends, remains to be seen. I still don’t see how the Republicans have ANYTHING to gain by supporting it, but you know how the Dems would like to play it: they’d like to make Republican support crucial to passage, because they don’t want to sit on the eventual failure of this bill and watch it over the next few years, NOT STIMULATE ANYTHING, but their own hegemony. THe Republicans too will be frozen out of all consideration, no monies will flow to them or their constituencies, in some grand gesture of vengeance aimed at crippling the “loyal opposition”. So in my view the Dems have placed themselves on the horns of a dilemma, and both horns are of their own making. If the Republican Party is to be reborn as a conservative party worthy of being called the opposition party, it will continue to hammer home the points it’s already put out there: reiterate the reasons why it’s not supporting the bill, (including the ridiculous ACORN bailout, which we thought was scrubbed from one of the first stimulus packages), and only then will enough support flow back to them (from ALL quarters) to make the Dems shake in their boots at what a stupid and selfish thing they’ve done.
You're right.
The South was able to secede because of the clear geographical boundaries with the north and the subsequent war that was fought was not a true 'civil war'.
Individual states could try to secede today, but even that would prove to be difficult because of the pressure that the Obama regime would bring to bear.
Like Lincoln, Obama's only desire to maintain the union is his own personal legacy, which he has already begun to talk about.
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.