Let's not forget that over 50% of the profit Hydro Quebec just announced was from electricity that comes from Churchill Falls. (Oops, was that my outside voice???)
Yeah, I'm a Newfie.
Missouri Votes To Secede From The Union
- Thread starter C Reed
- Start date
- Status
Let's not forget that over 50% of the profit Hydro Quebec just announced was from electricity that comes from Churchill Falls. (Oops, was that my outside voice???)
Yeah, I'm a Newfie.
Last edited:
US v. Darby
Apparently Politicians no longer can read.
Or perhaps more likely, they think they constituents are ignorant enough to be swayed by a meaningless grandstand that wastes everyone's time and tax dollars.
I disagree Gentlemanfarmer. Secession was first announced at the realization that Lincoln would win the presidency. The reason he was so unpalatable to the seceeding states is almost universally accepted to be because of fears that he would outlaw slavery despite his claims that he would not. Confederate leaders who had outright declared slavery to be the primary issue of the secession only changed their purported reasons after the war was over.
Apparently Politicians no longer can read.
Or perhaps more likely, they think they constituents are ignorant enough to be swayed by a meaningless grandstand that wastes everyone's time and tax dollars.
I disagree Gentlemanfarmer. Secession was first announced at the realization that Lincoln would win the presidency. The reason he was so unpalatable to the seceeding states is almost universally accepted to be because of fears that he would outlaw slavery despite his claims that he would not. Confederate leaders who had outright declared slavery to be the primary issue of the secession only changed their purported reasons after the war was over.
Last edited:
Yeah, apparently some of those unacceptable "federal policies" Missouri wants to rescind include the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s and those pesky amendments outlawing slavery, women's suffrage, voter discrimination and the separation of church and state. Show me the 1840's!
Jeff in Boston
There is no Amendment that "separates church and state". The word God is found throughout our founding documents and presidential addresses. The 1st Amendment only prohibits government from establishing, or prohibiting the exercise of, a religion. People today have misconstrued that as meaning there should be no reference to religion in any governmental process. This was not the original intent.
Yeah, apparently some of those unacceptable "federal policies" Missouri wants to rescind include the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s and those pesky amendments outlawing slavery, women's suffrage, voter discrimination and the separation of church and state. Show me the 1840's!
Jeff in Boston
Hmmmmmmmm.
I would say hogwash, but instead...
BACON!!
Yummmmmm.
Makes me wonder if the Posse Comitatus Act is applicable...seems a catch 22: If the Fed doesn't recognize a right to succession, one might think the act applies; if you do recognize a right to succession, the act wouldn't apply but then again you wouldn't have a basis for fighting the succession.
Last edited:
Except for the fact that many of the Founders were not Christians and some were even vocal atheists...I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that the common belief that our founding fathers were devout Christians is factually incorrect:
-No contemporary reports of George Washington report him declaring his faith
-John Adams wrote: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" He also ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, of which Article XI says "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
-Thomas Jefferson referred to the Revelation of St John as "the ravings of a maniac" and also wrote: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
-James Madison, who is considered the father of the constitution wrote "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." and also
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
And last but not least,
-Benjamin Franklin wrote: "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."
Last edited:
Before I turn this over to yummy bacon, let me state there is not ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to God or any other deity in the U.S. Constitution or in ANY of the amendments to the Constitution. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, the Founding Fathers, were VERY clear about not including recognition of a specific deity or a "federal" religion, leaving all that stuff to the states to institute on their own. All the "In God We Trust" stuff happened many years later.
Mmmm, bacon.
Jeff in Boston
What secession?
Other than the OP's thread title, I can't find any mention of secession
Only as a point of clarification, Washington and Franklin were not atheists.
I was responding to the theoretical combination of the OP post/title and this quote:
Nothing more than a thought experiment.
I wish these "Tenthers" and other Tea Party activists would actually bother to read the Constitution in its entirety, rather than their current selective reduction the entire document to the 2nd and 10th amendments. If they would bother to do so, or would take a moment to search the history of constitutional law in the US, they would realize these state constitution efforts mean nothing.
The Constitution states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. This clause renders states impotent in the face of federal law, with their sole recourse being a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of any given law. States have no better chance at changing federal law through state constitutional amendments than they do declaring that the law of gravity does not apply within their 'sovereign' borders.
Only the United States Supreme Court may decide with any force whether or not a federal action violates the 10th Amendment.
The Constitution states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. This clause renders states impotent in the face of federal law, with their sole recourse being a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of any given law. States have no better chance at changing federal law through state constitutional amendments than they do declaring that the law of gravity does not apply within their 'sovereign' borders.
Only the United States Supreme Court may decide with any force whether or not a federal action violates the 10th Amendment.
Last edited:
That's right, only some of them were vocal atheists while some of the others simply were not self-described Christians. No disagreement with your clarification at all.
From THIS article on Forbes.com:
For an antitax group, they don't know much about taxes.
In short, no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.
Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.
As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president.
Last edited:
nt
Last edited:
I never said they were all Christians. I only said there is nothing in the Constitution that would preclude them from expressing/writing Christian beliefs within their governmental role. The 1st Amendment only says they can't establish a state religion, or prevent others from worship.
No disagreement there, sorry if my comment read as if it implied otherwise
I think, and this is only a passing thought as I type this, that perhaps the misunderstanding-leap from 1st Amendment to the idea that there can be no religious-related items within government owned/operated institutions or facilities comes from the assumption that if such things were to exist, they would imply to others *that particular* religion or spiritual idea is the one most liked by this particular organization/building/etc, and that such an implication implicitly establishes a preferred mode of religious thought as seen by that governmental institution. Just an idea.
Last edited:
Folks, a warning before things head to their typical conclusion, complete with thread locking and barbershop removal -- personal attacks are not permitted here. Back and forth argumentation is best saved for political forums, not shaving forums. 
Unfortunately its not secession. I hope it happens though because many states will fall in line with them and frankly, if they pull what money they send to Washington out, they will have more money as the poorer states already get disproportionately less federal funding. So the myth that the federal government could do anything about should be considered carefully. As for the person referring to the "How did that work for them?" This time great men like Robert E. Lee who was a gentleman and far to mild tempered to be a good war strategist will not be in charge. This time all the advantages the North had are now lost, and this would not be treated with the same arrogance that people had during the civil war. Besides, the vote had nothing to do with secession. As was said above its political grandstanding and nothing more, but if the current regime does not back off, larger states like Texas have already said that they will seek justice through the 10th amendment which the current administration completely ignores. Not to mention the current leader has all his personal records sealed therefore, from the constitution standpoint, we don't really know if the current president is even in fact an American citizen. Again, this vote is meaningless on both parties because the feds don't get it and neither does Missouri.
A question: The topic of US states rejecting parts of federal legislation and claiming states sovereignty in these matters (whatever they may be) seems to have come up before. What interests me here: how dependent are state budgets from federal taxes? Could a state actually get along on its own budget?
These problems arise all the time over here as well, Germany being a federal state as well and the federal government and the individual states battling it out all the time over who gets to decide what; although the problem ins't really a divisive one here. And the fact that the states are dependent on federal money always settles it, anyway.
These problems arise all the time over here as well, Germany being a federal state as well and the federal government and the individual states battling it out all the time over who gets to decide what; although the problem ins't really a divisive one here. And the fact that the states are dependent on federal money always settles it, anyway.
Missouri gets more money from the federal government than it pays in federal taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
Last edited:
- Status
