To The States: Should We Talk About Secession?

Market-Ticker ^ | 11 October 2009 | Karl Denninger

[combat_boots]

I'm going to go back to this quote by Barney Frank of the US House, because it says everything those in state and local governments need to know:

Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that the defaults were, in essence, worth it.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the bad loans occurred,” he said. “It was an effort to keep prices from falling too fast. That’s a policy.”

Got it? It's a policy to screw the state and local governments.

Huh, you say? It's simple, really: State and local governments rely on property tax revenues. Yet defaulted mortgages don't pay property taxes. Yes, there's a lien on the property but this doesn't help the municipal budget now.

And suffer they are:

Tax revenues used to pay teachers and fuel police cars continue to trail even the most pessimistic expectations, despite the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.

"It's crazy. It's really just unbelievable," said Scott Pattison, executive

[Non-Sequitur]

Hmmm. Perhaps ole’ Michael should read Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris, you know the treaty that ended the revolutionary war. Oddly, they British government understood that the States were SOVERIEGN and not because the yet unformed US Supreme Court said they were or weren't.

Hmmm. Perhaps you need to read the rest of the Treaty of Paris. It was signed by the United States, not by New York and Pennsylvania and Delaware. It is a treaty between Great Britain and a single country, not between Great Britain and a thirteen countries.

[Non-Sequitur]

Reform a union of solvent states.

So the seceding states, who's political leaders helped run up the debt in the first place, are going to just walk away from it? And you expect the other states to sit still for that?

[myself6]

“...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is all the justification that is needed. We simply choose to “alter or abolish” by removing ourselves from its purview.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm willing to pay off the U.S. government for their military bases, their air traffic control system, their border inspectors (ha!) and other investments they have made in my state. Slaves sometimes have to pay for their freedom.

What about the debt that was run up, aided and abetted by three Texan presidents? If you split it along population then the sovereign nation of Texas would have between $900 billion and $1 trillion as a christening gift. As someone once pointed out, freedom isn't free.

[Non-Sequitur]

This is all the justification that is needed. We simply choose to “alter or abolish” by removing ourselves from its purview.

And there is no doubt that rebellion is a right reserved to the people when they feel that there is no other alternative available to them. But the Constitution also gives Congress the power to suppress such rebellions, so it isn't going to be a walk in the park.

[Non-Sequitur]

WOW N-S .... Are you a lawyer?

No but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

And I've read the Constitution.

[myself6]

I guess we really dont f-—ing care if they “sit still” for it or not. If they want freedom they can join us, if they want to keep their chains they can stay and carry the weight of decades of socialism.

[myself6]

Well...

I guess its a good thing were not looking for a walk in the park.

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess we really dont f-—ing care if they “sit still” for it or not. If they want freedom they can join us, if they want to keep their chains they can stay and carry the weight of decades of socialism.

Of course you don't care. Well, it should be interesting then. Sherman's march, redux, and all the rest.

[Just mythoughts]

And I've read the Constitution.

Was the Constitution breathing when you read it?

[Non-Sequitur]

Was the Constitution breathing when you read it?

No.

[myself6]

yeah...

Only one way to find out who is right...

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess its a good thing were not looking for a walk in the park.

The last time a bunch of states tried it they didn't want their independence badly enough to win. Hopefully you will have learned from their mistakes.

[MamaTexan]

And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments established by compact should not be changed for light or transient causes; but should a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evince a design in any one of the confederates to usurp a dominion over the rest; or, if those who are entrusted to administer the government, which the confederates have for their mutual convenience established, should manifest a design to invade their sovereignty, and extend their own power beyond the terms of compact, to the detriment of the states respectively, and to reduce them to a state of obedience, and finally to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority, it then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII

------

The federal government was instituted to protect the common rights of the People and the States, yet today's federal government has prostituted the Law in order to violate the public trust with impunity.

IMHO, the States (and the People) have not only the right, but the DUTY to take back any granted authority that has been abused.

[xzins]

It is far less dangerous today. There is no one in Northeast or on the left coast ready to lay down their lives to defend their own cities from attack. They’re sure not going to die for fly-over country.

IF there were ever an apathetic time in the history of the US, this is it.

[myself6]

We did. ;-)

Also, this is not then.

[Le Chien Rouge]

To The States: Should We Talk About Secession?

No....

1) We conservatives MUST stop being in the defensive mode and launch a very strong offensive against the left.

2) The hell with Obama and focus on US congressman,US Senators, the media, lawyers(A BIG PROBLEM) and academia.

3) All future local Tea parties should protest ONE person taking a page from rule# 11 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules from Radicals. Let them feel our wrath.

4) Make the primary goal of any tea party Economic Liberty by reforming the Tax code in this country by either a flat tax or the Fair Tax. This must be the #1 goal.

5) Adopt a live and let live platform as long as one understands that with liberty also comes RESPONSIBILITY for ones actions and behaviors.

6) Understand that there is a very good chance that this country is going to have a very bloody revolution/civil war and that many friends or family members that have different beliefs may be killed. War is Hell and fought to win.

[Atlas Sneezed]

So the seceding states, who’s political leaders helped run up the debt in the first place, are going to just walk away from it? And you expect the other states to sit still for that?

---

No, the people of the red states, whose leaders had little to do with Obamanomics (or have been run out on a rail) are going to walk away from the corrupt and unconstitutional federal government that ran up the debt.

[Favor Center]

“My forefathers fought to establish this country in 1776 and to preserve it in 1861.”

There’s no “preserving” a voluntary Republic with force.

[Non-Sequitur]

No, the people of the red states, whose leaders had little to do with Obamanomics (or have been run out on a rail) are going to walk away from the corrupt and unconstitutional federal government that ran up the debt.

It's corrupt and unconstitutional when Democrats are doing it, but honest and constitutional when the GOP is doing it. Thanks for clearing that up for us.