Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States and Katzenbach v McClung in 1964 established the constituionality of the civil rights act. Im pretty sure it was a unanimous decision.
Tu Stultus Es
Poll
Do You Consider Yourself A US citizen Or A Citizen Of Your State?
| I identify more with National Citizenship | 86% | 86% - 33 | ||||
| I identify more with State/local Citizenship | 13% | 13% - 5 | ||||
| Total: 38 | ||||||
The link I gave was a discussion of the end of the Articles and what led to the development of our current system of government. It is relevant because it shows the context of why the system changed and the worries many had regarding the power states should have -- including the right to secede.eleven bravo wrote:
I fail to see how a debate on the articles of confederation are significant to state power vs federal. the articles of confederation failed because the intent of the founders was to have one national government. the constitution explicitly states in the first three articles of the consititution. in fact, the only reason why states have believed that hay autonomy was because of the the last amendment in the bill of rights. a very vague and broad definition of poweres not enumerated in the constitution being regulated by state government. as far as articles of confederation go, they have no place in this debate unless of course the year was 1785 or something. what remains is our constitution that specifically states the important of the federal governments legislative and execuitve and how state governments do not surpass those powers. it was seen time and time again prior to the civil war when states attempted top assert their independent authority. Shays rebelleion, the whiskey rebellion and the threat of new england seceding in the early half of the the 19th century. no case as far i know supports your argument for a policy that made it "easier" for a state secede. articles of confederation have been null and void and hold no significant to modern or even historical american government.
It is true that the Articles failed because they didn't unify the states enough. However, unification does not require the banning of secession. In fact, many would argue the threat of secession is a valid counter to the federal government running roughshod over the rights of states.
Because there no longer is that counter, there is a lot of valid criticism that this is exactly what the feds have been doing for a while now.
So be like me and support the libertarian view that all power should be pushed down as far as possible within the chain instead of ever upwards as it has been flowing since the country founded. The town you live in has far more impact on your daily life than what state or country you live in so the ultimate power should rest there. That is the ultimate in self determination. An example would be our state constitution that grants the teachers union all sorts of special rights and powers. Townships themselves should be able to determine whether they wish to allow the union into their school district. It shouldn't be mandated from above. Centralization of power increases 'special interest' and lobbyist power at the expense of us, the common people who actually have to live with whatever is legislated.SenorToenails wrote:
What high-speed rail? I haven't heard anything about something like that in a while... I say to dump everything below that line so that the state can actually properly represent its populations. Maybe the upper half would have to offer fewer services to its constituents, but at least proper representation could happen.JohnG@lt wrote:
You know the primary reason for the LI secession stuff is that we send far more money to Albany than we ever get back right? Far more money goes upstate to you guys than we get back. Retarded stuff like the Buffalo-Albany high speed railroad and cheese museums etc.SenorToenails wrote:
In my view, draw a line continuing from the NY/PA border by Binghamton and make the southern half its own problem. Leave the rest of the state to manage itself. That way, we lose Paterson.
I know this will never happen, and thus--it's not thought out very well! A more realistic option would be honest politicians and a change in the way this state actually works. And you know just how likely that is...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
dude, thats a really silly argumentrdx-fx wrote:
Your view seems to be the simplistic one.JohnG@lt wrote:
The states you despise have the most productive economies in the country. Just because we aren't ranchers attending rodeos and pretending we're still cowboys from the 1800s doesn't make us less useful Your view on what drives a country is very, very simplistic.
How many urban Californians do you know that can hunt, fish, farm, build a house, fix a car, fix a small plane, fix plumbing, work with concrete, accurately shoot a rifle, do general first aid, operate heavy machinery, operate a hand shovel, or ... do anything but go to work, stare at a computer, and shuffle paperwork.
The vast majority of the people I know, can do all of the above. Including the 'stare at a computer and shuffle paperwork', when need be.
The cities and states I'm picking on are the bad examples of consumerist excess. Chicago, California's 'Inland Empire', New York City. The urban sprawl, the nanny-state laws, the overinflated entitlement programs (always funded by other peoples money, never a pay-as-you-go system) ... None of that is sustainable, unless someone else is footing the bill or you're deep into deficit spending.
The economic problems might be fixable, if it weren't for the deeply ingrained unconstitutional style of government in the above mentioned areas. The above problem areas, the local government treats the people as subjects rather than citizens - as simpletons to be protected from themselves, rather than as responsible adults to be left alone and respected.
Note that i did not include Denver, Colorado or Seattle, Washington or Milwaukee, Wisconsin in my list of ejectable areas.
Those areas still have a sense of self-reliance, a few people left that wouldn't be absolutely helpless without their credit card and cell phone.
give those guys the boot because they cant fish? sounds almost biblical. cmon now
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-05-28 12:58:35)
Tu Stultus Es
no the that counter was stated in the constitution with the establishment of the judiciary branch. the power was further affirmed in marbury v madison with the ability for the courts to establish judicial review. judicial review is the right of the court to determine whether an act of government was in breech of the law. secession is NOT a right pointed out anywhere in the our nations founding document.Turquoise wrote:
The link I gave was a discussion of the end of the Articles and what led to the development of our current system of government. It is relevant because it shows the context of why the system changed and the worries many had regarding the power states should have -- including the right to secede.eleven bravo wrote:
I fail to see how a debate on the articles of confederation are significant to state power vs federal. the articles of confederation failed because the intent of the founders was to have one national government. the constitution explicitly states in the first three articles of the consititution. in fact, the only reason why states have believed that hay autonomy was because of the the last amendment in the bill of rights. a very vague and broad definition of poweres not enumerated in the constitution being regulated by state government. as far as articles of confederation go, they have no place in this debate unless of course the year was 1785 or something. what remains is our constitution that specifically states the important of the federal governments legislative and execuitve and how state governments do not surpass those powers. it was seen time and time again prior to the civil war when states attempted top assert their independent authority. Shays rebelleion, the whiskey rebellion and the threat of new england seceding in the early half of the the 19th century. no case as far i know supports your argument for a policy that made it "easier" for a state secede. articles of confederation have been null and void and hold no significant to modern or even historical american government.
It is true that the Articles failed because they didn't unify the states enough. However, unification does not require the banning of secession. In fact, many would argue the threat of secession is a valid counter to the federal government running roughshod over the rights of states.
Because there no longer is that counter, there is a lot of valid criticism that this is exactly what the feds have been doing for a while now.
Tu Stultus Es
This is true, but I guess my question is... Why can't a state secede if it desires to?eleven bravo wrote:
no the that counter was stated in the constitution with the establishment of the judiciary branch. the power was further affirmed in marbury v madison with the ability for the courts to establish judicial review. judicial review is the right of the court to determine whether an act of government was in breech of the law. secession is NOT a right pointed out anywhere in the our nations founding document.Turquoise wrote:
The link I gave was a discussion of the end of the Articles and what led to the development of our current system of government. It is relevant because it shows the context of why the system changed and the worries many had regarding the power states should have -- including the right to secede.eleven bravo wrote:
I fail to see how a debate on the articles of confederation are significant to state power vs federal. the articles of confederation failed because the intent of the founders was to have one national government. the constitution explicitly states in the first three articles of the consititution. in fact, the only reason why states have believed that hay autonomy was because of the the last amendment in the bill of rights. a very vague and broad definition of poweres not enumerated in the constitution being regulated by state government. as far as articles of confederation go, they have no place in this debate unless of course the year was 1785 or something. what remains is our constitution that specifically states the important of the federal governments legislative and execuitve and how state governments do not surpass those powers. it was seen time and time again prior to the civil war when states attempted top assert their independent authority. Shays rebelleion, the whiskey rebellion and the threat of new england seceding in the early half of the the 19th century. no case as far i know supports your argument for a policy that made it "easier" for a state secede. articles of confederation have been null and void and hold no significant to modern or even historical american government.
It is true that the Articles failed because they didn't unify the states enough. However, unification does not require the banning of secession. In fact, many would argue the threat of secession is a valid counter to the federal government running roughshod over the rights of states.
Because there no longer is that counter, there is a lot of valid criticism that this is exactly what the feds have been doing for a while now.
Who cares? It doesn't matter what you personally can do, that's why we have a fucking economy in the first place. Some people do certain kinds of work, some do other kinds of work, when they need stuff from each other they trade money for the services. It's the entire foundation of a functioning economy. The goal in life shouldn't be to aspire to some hick scratch farming existence.rdx-fx wrote:
How many urban Californians do you know that canJohnG@lt wrote:
The states you despise have the most productive economies in the country. Just because we aren't ranchers attending rodeos and pretending we're still cowboys from the 1800s doesn't make us less useful Your view on what drives a country is very, very simplistic.
hunt, check
fish, check
farm, I can grow a mean vegetable garden
build a house, I built a house for habitat for humanity, does that count?
fix a car, check, I do all my own work
fix a small plane, never had the need but if you can fix a car engine, you can fix a small plane engine
fix plumbing, check
work with concrete, check, most of my family has been in the concrete business
accurately shoot a rifle, check, was in the army
do general first aid, check, same as above
operate heavy machinery, check
operate a hand shovel, check, see:army
or ... do anything but go to work, stare at a computer, and shuffle paperwork.
The vast majority of the people I know, can do all of the above. Including the 'stare at a computer and shuffle paperwork', when need be.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
because there are no legal mechanisms in place that allow a state to do that. there was a hell of a lot of debate and argument and bad blood between the founding fathers in the creation of the constitution. you know this. if the founding fathers had wanted the right for a state to remove itself from our union, it would have explicitly stated that right somewhere. since they did not, we could confidentally assume that balance and compromise that came with writing the constitution wholly considered that right and they didnt include it for a reason.
Tu Stultus Es
No, I understand that as well. What I'm asking is one of principle. Why shouldn't a state be allowed to secede if the vast majority of its citizens desire it?eleven bravo wrote:
because there are no legal mechanisms in place that allow a state to do that. there was a hell of a lot of debate and argument and bad blood between the founding fathers in the creation of the constitution. you know this. if the founding fathers had wanted the right for a state to remove itself from our union, it would have explicitly stated that right somewhere. since they did not, we could confidentally assume that balance and compromise that came with writing the constitution wholly considered that right and they didnt include it for a reason.
Yep...I pretty much am libertarian in that way.JohnG@lt wrote:
So be like me and support the libertarian view that all power should be pushed down as far as possible within the chain instead of ever upwards as it has been flowing since the country founded. The town you live in has far more impact on your daily life than what state or country you live in so the ultimate power should rest there. That is the ultimate in self determination. An example would be our state constitution that grants the teachers union all sorts of special rights and powers. Townships themselves should be able to determine whether they wish to allow the union into their school district. It shouldn't be mandated from above. Centralization of power increases 'special interest' and lobbyist power at the expense of us, the common people who actually have to live with whatever is legislated.
Haha, rdx-fx on top of coming up with a weak argument as to why the largest urban states should be kicked out you back it up with ridiculous assumptions.
because when they made the country, they thought putting that line in the doctrine but decided against. if the majority of its citizens are unhappy about the federal government, they could move (which is what you are doing correct?)... I mean thats the same argument states rights love to say when it supports their argument "you dont like whites only water fountains, move to california then" no?
Tu Stultus Es
It was one of the dumbest posts I've read on this forum13/f/taiwan wrote:
Haha, rdx-fx on top of coming up with a weak argument as to why the largest urban states should be kicked out you back it up with ridiculous assumptions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
rdx is a smart guy too
Tu Stultus Es
I think that whole rural = true american and urban = less american really is the thing i hate the most about sarah palin.
Tu Stultus Es
Is that her schtick? I haven't paid any attention to her tbh.eleven bravo wrote:
I think that whole rural = true american and urban = less american really is the thing i hate the most about sarah palin.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, true. I am moving eventually. Although I would say that the "whites only" argument is invalid because of civil rights. I realize that historically, states' rights advocates have been the ones to defy civil rights legislation handed down from the feds, but I think we've evolved as a society to understand that some things should be universal in their implementation.eleven bravo wrote:
because when they made the country, they thought putting that line in the doctrine but decided against. if the majority of its citizens are unhappy about the federal government, they could move (which is what you are doing correct?)... I mean thats the same argument states rights love to say when it supports their argument "you dont like whites only water fountains, move to california then" no?
A valid argument in favor of secession would be something more economic in nature. Let's say Vermont decided to pool enough money to pay the feds for all of the property it owns there and to pay a reasonable concession to them for the sections of interstates that cross Vermont.
Their reasoning for secession would be one that they felt like the rest of the country was taking more from them than they were getting back in benefits. That's a valid rationale for secession in my opinion.
Civil rights are the sort of thing that should be respected and enforced regardless of being part of the union or not.
What country in the world actually allows citizens to break-off and make their own country with no trouble what-so-ever?Turquoise wrote:
No, I understand that as well. What I'm asking is one of principle. Why shouldn't a state be allowed to secede if the vast majority of its citizens desire it?
Somalia.
"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."
Tu Stultus Es
See: ChechnyaSenorToenails wrote:
What country in the world actually allows citizens to break-off and make their own country with no trouble what-so-ever?Turquoise wrote:
No, I understand that as well. What I'm asking is one of principle. Why shouldn't a state be allowed to secede if the vast majority of its citizens desire it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So all that's required to be a 'real American' is being inbred and waving a flag? Cool. Good to know.eleven bravo wrote:
"We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
filing suit in a court of law has a much higher likelihood of being successful than secession does.Turquoise wrote:
Well, true. I am moving eventually. Although I would say that the "whites only" argument is invalid because of civil rights. I realize that historically, states' rights advocates have been the ones to defy civil rights legislation handed down from the feds, but I think we've evolved as a society to understand that some things should be universal in their implementation.eleven bravo wrote:
because when they made the country, they thought putting that line in the doctrine but decided against. if the majority of its citizens are unhappy about the federal government, they could move (which is what you are doing correct?)... I mean thats the same argument states rights love to say when it supports their argument "you dont like whites only water fountains, move to california then" no?
A valid argument in favor of secession would be something more economic in nature. Let's say Vermont decided to pool enough money to pay the feds for all of the property it owns there and to pay a reasonable concession to them for the sections of interstates that cross Vermont.
Their reasoning for secession would be one that they felt like the rest of the country was taking more from them than they were getting back in benefits. That's a valid rationale for secession in my opinion.
Civil rights are the sort of thing that should be respected and enforced regardless of being part of the union or not.
Tu Stultus Es
Well, I'm not saying there are many that fit that description. It's understandable that a government would be reluctant to allow that.SenorToenails wrote:
What country in the world actually allows citizens to break-off and make their own country with no trouble what-so-ever?Turquoise wrote:
No, I understand that as well. What I'm asking is one of principle. Why shouldn't a state be allowed to secede if the vast majority of its citizens desire it?
However, we are supposed to fundamentally differ from other countries in terms of regional representation, and states in this country are understood to have more autonomy than in most other countries. I figure secession isn't too much of a stretch.
Also, we have ironically supported the secession of one area from its government in recent years... Kosovo. It would be a bit hypocritical to do that and then deny secession in our own country.
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.