Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What If the 50 States Joined Together and Formed a New Federal Government? (Vanity)
March 24, 2010 | lmsii

Posted on 03/24/2010 3:25:32 PM PDT by lmsii

Just a Question for Discussion.

What would the existing Federal Government do?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last
To: crz

Good news from Michigan...still waiting for Vermont!


101 posted on 03/24/2010 6:21:55 PM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself... - D.H. Lawrence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

That’s a nice list


102 posted on 03/24/2010 6:38:01 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Himyar
I, too, served in the military, and I come from a military family. I know that we took an oath to uphold the constitution, but who decides what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional? If the Supreme Court ruled that something was unconstitutional and the POTUS tried to enforce something that was blatantly unconstitutional, that would be an clear cut decision. But what if the Supreme Court decided that something that in the view of most citizens was unconstitutional as constitutional? Would that make it constitutional? Even if something is ruled constitutional, that does not make it right. To take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States is not as easy as it sounds. The Nazis took an oath to their Constitution, too, and they were still condemned as war criminals.
103 posted on 03/24/2010 6:42:55 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AndrewB

I’m not sure we want all 50, this would be a great opportunity to get rid of a few of the more liberal states.

In the end if we have that much of a majority the Federal government will have no choice but to accept disillusionment.


104 posted on 03/24/2010 6:51:36 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

“I, too, served in the military, and I come from a military family. I know that we took an oath to uphold the constitution, but who decides what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional? If the Supreme Court ruled that something was unconstitutional and the POTUS tried to enforce something that was blatantly unconstitutional, that would be an clear cut decision. But what if the Supreme Court decided that something that in the view of most citizens was unconstitutional as constitutional? Would that make it constitutional? Even if something is ruled constitutional, that does not make it right. To take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States is not as easy as it sounds. The Nazis took an oath to their Constitution, too, and they were still condemned as war criminals.”

The United States Supreme court does not have the final word on what is and what is not Constitutional. If it did then there would be no Constitution, only a Supreme court.

The authority instead rest with we the people, and as our tools our States.


105 posted on 03/24/2010 6:56:01 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: quintr

Just like the rest of MI could get along a whole lot better without the Detroit/Flint/Jackson corner.


106 posted on 03/24/2010 6:57:21 PM PDT by bog trotter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
Again, who decides what is constitutional and what is not? The authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not is not given to the people to decide, but to the Supreme Court to decide. The Constitution established the judicial branch of government for that purpose. If every person in the United States decided that something was constitutional, except five people on the Supreme Court that decided that it was unconstitutional, it would be ruled unconstitutional. There is a way for the states to change the Constitution by adding amendments. The interpretation of the Constitution is the purview of the Supreme Court.
107 posted on 03/24/2010 9:00:20 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Yeah, uh what if some people don’t want to; and some states; and what about the Constitution; and what about the “new” Constitution; etc.

IMHO, the better approach is to let Brainiac shrink the country down like City of Kandor, then get another bottle for all the ones who want out of Bottle 1.

parsy, the practical


108 posted on 03/24/2010 9:04:43 PM PDT by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Continental Congress
109 posted on 03/24/2010 9:24:22 PM PDT by vigilante2 (2261)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AndrewB
"Do we have to take all 50?"

Yeah I could stand to leave Kalifornia and Washington out of the mix. In fact we could mandate all liberals in the states other than Kali and Wash would have to move there and all the Conservatives from those two would come to our States.

The Moderates can all move to Canada.

110 posted on 03/24/2010 9:28:32 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the next one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

“The federal government keeps the union together by force of arms. That was the lesson learned from the Civil War. “

It was actually The War Between the States. The Federal Government had a little over 16,000 men in the Regular Army at the beginning. At First Manassas they had something over 35,000, not Regular Army but volunteers from the Northern States. Without the agreement of the Northern States and Northerner volunteers in the beginning, Southern secession likely would not have been stopped.

“As long as the federal government controls the army, much as Rome ruled by the loyalty of the military to Caesar, the imperial hegemony in Washington rules by force. “

The armed forces consist of people from the States mostly. It is paid and supplied with money the fed gov gets from the States (OK, that’s theoretical. They may actually borrow the money.) Out military has no Caesar. If the 50 States decided to eliminate the fed gov, the fed gov would be limited in the amount of force it could apply to them.

“If the military refused to enforce the POTUS’ orders, many states would leave and form a far better government than the one that we have now. “

Not if current State governments are an indication of the government they would form.

“Even if all 50 states decided to form their own government, Washington would not allow that to happen. We would have martial law declared throughout all 50 states and the leaders declared terrorists.”

If all 50 states decided to form a new national government, Washington wouldn’t have the ability to stop them.


111 posted on 03/24/2010 10:07:18 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

“Two years after the Panic of 1893, the US government came close to bankruptcy.”

Oh and we are not at bankruptcy now? Something else happened under Wilsons terms..the Federal Reserve act. That is why our money is worthless.


112 posted on 03/25/2010 2:09:10 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

“We would have martial law declared throughout all 50 states and the leaders declared terrorists.”

Who would enforce It? King obuma’s fat welfare momma brigade doesn’t even have a CP, let alone a squad leader.

The last poll of military officers showed that 90% of them classified themselves as Republican or conservative. Any call-up of the military to attack American civilians is extremely dangerous for king obuma. It’s more likely that the guns will be turned against the federal fascists.


113 posted on 03/25/2010 6:39:11 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: crz

Back then, bankruptcy meant that the USG had run out of money. That is the height of solvency compared to where we stand now, with an estimated $100T in debt and promissory debt. There is no conceivable way around that, other than default.

However, that being said, default may not be as bad as all that. Several States defaulted in the Andrew Jackson caused Panic of 1837, and many nations have done so in the modern area. Portugal just had its debt downgraded to AA, and Greece will likely default to receive an IMF bailout, since the EU have told them to go fish.

A US default will force the feds into a surplus budget, and it will kill imports except for commodities swaps. So if the US wants it, it will have to make it here, which will strongly stimulate the economy.


114 posted on 03/25/2010 7:02:15 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Having spent most of my life in the military, those in the military operate within a chain of command. When you are given a direct order to do something, even if you think it may be wrong, you are very reluctant to disobey an order. If you do, you may find yourself before a court martial. Many people in the military want to make it a career, and they are not inclined to do anything that will cost them a promotion. It would be a mistake to think that everyone in the military would know enough to know when something is unconstitutional or not. Look at the Civil War. Do you believe that the vast majority of those fighting for the Union had the slightest idea for what they were fighting? They were drafted and ordered to fight. If they did not fight, they could be executed by a firing squad or hanged. It would be a grave mistake to think that our military would not enforce martial law if ordered. Do not forget that many of the blacks in the military, which there are many, would support Obama not matter what.
115 posted on 03/25/2010 9:12:42 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
Some of the things on which we are debating are impossible to prove because it is mainly theoretical at the moment. The US Constitution was written with most of the power residing in the states and a limited federal government. People within a state have a better chance of electing government officials that reflect their views, regardless of whether or not others may see them as good or bad. The reason that many states are dysfunctional is because of their dependence upon the federal government and because of federal mandates. I believe that people within a specific state know what they want and need more than those in Washington. If someone does not like living in a specific state, he can always move to one that the does like. Competition between states would have an affect upon states improving themselves. For instance, states along the gulf coast would be drilling for oil and building refiners; however, federal laws and regulations discourage such practice. Alaska would be another example.
The Civil War did create a need for a large military force. Neither the North nor South had large standing armies. We did not have a large military force even before WW1 and WW2. The military is controlled by Washington. The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the POTUS. The powers of the POTUS come about as close to a caesar as you can get, and in case of martial law, he has almost absolute power. Do you really believe that if it were not for military force that all the states within the United States would remain? I do not. If certain states believed that they could leave the Union without fear of military force, they would leave today. They do not leave, because they do not believe that Washington will let them leave.
116 posted on 03/25/2010 9:32:18 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: lmsii

You have way too much time on your hands.


117 posted on 03/25/2010 9:33:46 AM PDT by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

So General Stupid marches his band of mass murderers through Oceanside and Huntington Beach and kills a few dozen families of Marines. What does General Stupid do when the 1st Marine Division pours out of Camp Pendleton and attacks him, while the 3rd MAW is bombing his flanks? What does General Stupid do when he calls his CP and finds it in flames and his staff hanging from trees?

Yep, sending the military out to massacre civilians will do wonders for inter-service cooperation and unity.

There are no enemy frontlines. There are no enemy camps.

So maybe in your world you’d follow Gen. Stupid. Not in mine.


118 posted on 03/25/2010 2:34:40 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
We do live in different worlds. I am trying the best that I can to understand your example, but I cannot relate to it. I was stationed at Camp Pendleton a long time ago. I still have nightmares about Mother. What I imagine would happen is that he Marines would be the ones that would be enforcing martial law. If the Commandant of the Marine Corps sent an order to Maj Gen Whoever to enforce martial law in California, that is what he would do. I would expect the Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Army to do the same. The only force that might not follow the orders of the JCS would be the National Guard. Unless the Supreme Court issued a clear ruling that the actions of the President are unconstitutional, the military must follow a legally issued order. If you believe that the brass is going to go against a direct order from JCS, you know more than I do.
119 posted on 03/25/2010 6:34:41 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

“Again, who decides what is constitutional and what is not? The authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not is not given to the people to decide, but to the Supreme Court to decide. The Constitution established the judicial branch of government for that purpose. If every person in the United States decided that something was constitutional, except five people on the Supreme Court that decided that it was unconstitutional, it would be ruled unconstitutional. There is a way for the states to change the Constitution by adding amendments. The interpretation of the Constitution is the purview of the Supreme Court.”

The power is not given to the courts either, but the people thou their states granted that power(individually) in joining the union in the first place therefore they must have the deciding what powers they individually agreed to grant.

So to be quite frank, We never ceded that final power, wisely as there can be no way to for such a constitution to serve its function of protecting us from the excesses of the government it creates if the same government is the Final judge of its own authority under that Constitution.

PS: one thing you need to know about the 3 branches and the court is they have the power to enforce the constitution which is to decide something is not constitutional, not to decide something is Constitutional. Because for something to be Constitutional the people thou their states would have had to grant the power to do that thing.

Thus only the people can decided if something is constitutional, but the court in upholding its oath just like the military and the other 2 branches can decide that something is not constitutional and simply not preform the function.

This is no anarchy as remember the people have 1 or 2 other far more general governments, in the form of their state and local governments, the State at least has all the practical domestic responsibility and it also had a practical defense capability in the ability to wage war if invaded or attacked.(using the militia).

So don’t think this is a careless system as it could easily break down, its made to break down(not work) rather then work tyrannically. That was the whole point of checks and balances!


120 posted on 03/25/2010 9:38:44 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson