Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

 

Poll

Do You Consider Yourself A US citizen Or A Citizen Of Your State?

I identify more with National Citizenship86%86% - 33
I identify more with State/local Citizenship13%13% - 5
Total: 38
2010-05-28 09:35:16
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6279|Truthistan
The weekend is here finally and I thought about this topic for a while and finally got around to posting it. With the recent talk of red state blue state, Texas secession, rising up, states rights, true/real American versus unAmerican I thought it a current and interesting topic. lots of meat on the bone for DST. The reason for my interest in this is that we hear about people railing against the federal govt and holding onto states rights, but how engrained is that concept. After all its been 150 years since the civil war. And to me we stopped being a Repoublic with the end of the civil war and the passage of the civil war amendments.


The topic a simple idea, which do you identitfy with more your national citizenship or your state/local citizenship. I say identify with more because the simple answer is both, so I left that option off because everyone probably prefers one over the other.

Here are some ideas for discussion.
1. If push came to shove and it came to violence/war which side would you pick, your country or your state? I guess its kind of an in depth civil war question.
2. If you moved to another state have you changed your mind? would you perfer national citzenship or your citizenship in your new state.
3. And be honest about this one, would you identify more with one side or the other based on the party in power or the person in the Whitehouse?

For people oustide the US it might be a foreign concept that since the US was conceived as a Republic that US citizens are citizens of the country and citizens of the state simultaneously. But it would be interesting to hear from you guys too. EU versus an individual country. your country veresus your local govt or province or state. Do people outside the US identify more or less with their national governments.



So I'll start, I would identify more with national citizenship. My feeling is that I shouldn't be a US citizen plus some rights in one state and a citizen minus some rights in another state. The whole idea of a checkerboard of rights is the antithetical to the idea of living in a nation, having national citizenship and rights based on the idea of individual equality within a national identity. I really don't care for things like "community standards" that are used to water down individual rights and to excuse infringements of those national rights by local subcultures. For me I really don't need any recognition of state citizenship at all, as I consider that to be a relic of the past that probably dies with the conclusion of the civil war. and I would fight with the US govt against any state govt, including my own, regardless of who was in the whitehouse.

Hope you guys enjoy this topic
2010-05-28 09:41:59
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6827|Texas - Bigger than France
And you call yourself a TEXAN?

Blasphemy
2010-05-28 09:45:24
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6771|England
In reality mate, it really doesn't matter because you're government has taken away your country never mind you're states due to the North American Union.

Last edited by LostFate (2010-05-28 09:46:17)

2010-05-28 09:46:28
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio
trollfate


in aviation you end up living in too many states so i dunno
2010-05-28 09:48:39
LostFate
Same shit, Different Arsehole
+95|6771|England

11 Bravo wrote:

trollfate


in aviation you end up living in too many states so i dunno
How am i trolling?
2010-05-28 09:52:33
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6783

very poorly.
2010-05-28 09:57:57
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6507|teh FIN-land
goddamn burnzz and 11 you're the worst trolls ever just stfu and get on with the thread.

It's an interesting question, and especially for us Euros cos we don't have anywhere near the state-level affiliation you guys sometimes feel in the US. I guess the EU as it is now is vaguely similar if you consider euro countries to be state equivalents. I'd have to say I feel almost zero affiliation towards the EU as a political construct.
2010-05-28 11:00:44
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

Null vote. Washington's government doesn't inspire much loyalty, but I consider myself both a state and national citizen equally.

LostFate wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

trollfate


in aviation you end up living in too many states so i dunno
How am i trolling?
Not troll so much as wat.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-28 11:01:55)

2010-05-28 11:01:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
Nah, I'd say LostFate makes an extra effort to troll as much as possible.  It's funny, because ruis typically gets labeled as hating America, but I don't think he does.  I can't always agree with his reasoning, but he at least provides an explanation for his statements.

As for Lost...  well, it would seem he takes every opportunity possible to complain about the U.S.  There's really not much of a context for it half of the time.  Normally, I don't like calling people out like this, but I'll make an exception for him.

Anyway, I feel more in tune with my state than my country.  I really don't like how we're so large.  There seems to be a lot of psychological distance between D.C. and much of the country.  I think this is inevitable no matter who enters power, because it's not really possible to reflect the interests of all 50 states under one government.  At the very best, we just fluctuate between different states getting more represented than others at any given time.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-28 11:02:39)

2010-05-28 11:02:56
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

Turquoise wrote:

As for Lost...  well, it would seem he takes every opportunity possible to complain about the U.S.  There's really not much of a context for it half of the time.  Normally, I don't like calling people out like this, but I'll make an exception for him.
when turq says it........you know its true.
2010-05-28 11:04:12
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,982|6917|949

I love thinking about the idea of group identity, Dunbar's number and the ease at which we are able to wander in and out of communal association depending on the circumstances.

As for the questions posed in the OP it's something I've never thought about but I guess I would side with my ideology far before I would side with a state or national identity.  I think I would have a hard time defending or siding with my state/nation/community if it didn't think it was just.
2010-05-28 11:04:59
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5871

And to me we stopped being a Repoublic with the end of the civil war and the passage of the civil war amendments.
excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?
2010-05-28 11:11:24
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6853|Mountains of NC

American then Southerner
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2010-05-28 11:14:02
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
cant we just have another civil war to clean out the population that forgot about the first civil war
Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-28 11:15:12
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:

And to me we stopped being a Repoublic with the end of the civil war and the passage of the civil war amendments.
excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?
I think he's referring to how Lincoln changed us from being a voluntary union to being a mandatory one.

Before the Civil War, states could secede much easier than they can now.  This process wasn't really tested until the formation of the Confederacy.  The aftermath of the Civil War resulted in strenghtening what bound states together to form our union.  Technically, a state can still file for secession now, but it requires the approval of the majority of the rest of the union.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-28 11:15:31)

2010-05-28 11:16:37
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

And to me we stopped being a Repoublic with the end of the civil war and the passage of the civil war amendments.
excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?
I think he's referring to how Lincoln changed us from being a voluntary union to being a mandatory one.

Before the Civil War, states could secede much easier than they can now.  This process wasn't really tested until the formation of the Confederacy.  The aftermath of the Civil War resulted in strenghtening what bound states together to form our union.  Technically, a state can still file for secession now, but it requires the approval of the majority of the rest of the union.
turq, any time the h9int of secessions was in the air, the government whooped ass.  how can you say something like "it was much easier before the civil war" when that is totally not true.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-05-28 11:16:46)

Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-28 11:19:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?
I think he's referring to how Lincoln changed us from being a voluntary union to being a mandatory one.

Before the Civil War, states could secede much easier than they can now.  This process wasn't really tested until the formation of the Confederacy.  The aftermath of the Civil War resulted in strenghtening what bound states together to form our union.  Technically, a state can still file for secession now, but it requires the approval of the majority of the rest of the union.
turq, any time the h9int of secessions was in the air, the government whooped ass.  how can you say something like "it was much easier before the civil war" when that is totally not true.
Easier as in policy-wise.  When the Articles of Confederation were first dissolved to form our current system of government, there were still things put into place to allow for withdrawal.  While it is true that the government itself has never favored withdrawal in its actions, there was at least more of a framework allowing for secession before the Civil War.  That framework disappeared after it.
2010-05-28 11:21:07
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
what things were put in place.  im not challenging you but im just interested to know what you are talking about.  any instance when there was a rebellion, the government put its foot down.   every single time.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-28 11:22:22
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
most supreme court decisions have held that state governments are subservent to the national government.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-28 11:29:50
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6415|North Tonawanda, NY

eleven bravo wrote:

most supreme court decisions have held that state governments are subservent to the national government.
Because they are, and always have been--though more so now than in 1800.

It is true that since the civil war the federal government has assumed more power and responsibility than before.  While some of it makes sense, some of it most certainly does not.
2010-05-28 11:30:33
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
commerce clause has been used to justify federal action since the begining.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-05-28 11:32:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

what things were put in place.  im not challenging you but im just interested to know what you are talking about.  any instance when there was a rebellion, the government put its foot down.   every single time.
Rakove (1988) identifies several factors that explain the collapse of the Confederation. The lack of compulsory direct taxation power was objectionable to those wanting a strong centralized state or expecting to benefit from such power. It could not collect customs after the war because tariffs were vetoed by Rhode Island. Rakove concludes that their failure to implement national measures "stemmed not from a heady sense of independence but rather from the enormous difficulties that all the states encountered in collecting taxes, mustering men, and gathering supplies from a war-weary populace." The second group of factors Rakove identified derived from the substantive nature of the problems the Continental Congress confronted after 1783, especially the inability to create a strong foreign policy. Finally, the Confederation's lack of coercive power reduced the likelihood for profit to be made by political means, thus potential rulers were uninspired to seek power.

When the war ended in 1783, certain special interests had incentives to create a new "merchant state," much like the British state people had rebelled against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition among states made this impossible without a central government.

Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that two prominent political leaders in the Confederation, John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor secession from the compact itself was consistent with the terms of their original pledges."

Law professor Daniel Farber argues that there was no clear consensus on the permanence of the Union or the issue of secession by the Founding Fathers. Farber wrote:

What about the original understanding? The debates contain scattered statements about the permanence or impermanence of the Union. The occasional reference to the possible impermanency of the Constitution are hard to interpret. They might have referred to a legal right to revoke ratification. But they could equally could have referred to an extraconstitutional right of revolution, or to the possibility that a new national convention would rewrite the Constitution, or simply to the factual possibility that the national government might break down. Similarly, references to the permanency of the Union could have referred to the practical unlikelihood of withdrawal rather than to any lack of legal power. The public debates seemingly do not speak specifically to whether ratification under Article VII was revocable.
However, what if one or more states do violate the compact? One view, not only about the Articles but also the later Constitution, was that the state or states injured by such a breach could rightfully secede. This position was held by, among others, Thomas Jefferson and John Calhoun.

If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation . . . to a continuance in union . . . I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.
— Jefferson letter to William H. Crawford, Monroe's Secretary of the Treasury, 1816
This view motivated discussions of secession and nullification at the Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes

It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.
A competing view, promoted by Daniel Webster and later by Abraham Lincoln , was that the Constitution (and Articles) established a permanent union. President Andrew Jackson during the Nullification Crisis, in his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina”, made the case for the perpetuity of the Union while also contrasting the differences between “revolution” and “secession”:

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.
This view, among others, was presented against declarations of secession from the Union by southern slave states as the American Civil War began.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

There were two competing views of interpretation regarding the Constitution's ability to bind the states to the union.  Up until after the Civil War, there was no clear consensus as to whether the union was permanent or voluntary.

The aforementioned Hartford Convention, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis all address this debate with different conclusions.

I guess you could say that there wasn't any exact wording of policy that allowed secession, but the way policy was interpreted allowed for it.  I suppose I used the wrong wording there.
2010-05-28 11:37:10
13rin
Member
+977|6764
I am an American first and a Floridian second.  That said, I think that States should have more power.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2010-05-28 11:40:19
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5871

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

And to me we stopped being a Repoublic with the end of the civil war and the passage of the civil war amendments.
excuse me but what the fuck are you talking about?
I think he's referring to how Lincoln changed us from being a voluntary union to being a mandatory one.

Before the Civil War, states could secede much easier than they can now.  This process wasn't really tested until the formation of the Confederacy.  The aftermath of the Civil War resulted in strenghtening what bound states together to form our union.  Technically, a state can still file for secession now, but it requires the approval of the majority of the rest of the union.
But we are still a republic. We can still choose our leaders. If she said Federalism ended with Lincoln then she would have a leg to stand on, but since she doesn't even know the terms she uses or needs how the hell am I supposed to take anything she says seriously?!
2010-05-28 11:42:43
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5544|foggy bottom
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.
Tu Stultus Es

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard