Missouri Votes To Secede From The Union

funkyb · Apr 9, 2010

Gruder said:
Back and forth argumentation is best saved for political forums, not shaving forums.

I thought that's what the barbershop was for!

I do hope all of my posts have been considered respectful, I'm in it for the intellectual/academic enjoyment, nothing personal or emotional.

C Reed · Apr 9, 2010

As for justifying my title 1. i'm almost always joking and 2 as several people have pointed out the only way a state can defy federal law is to leave the union. Passing the act is not secession but enforcing it would be, legally.

This is why pot is still illegal in California, despite efforts of the state to legalize it.

mr_economy · Apr 9, 2010

Nils said:
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.

Many states like to think they can survive independent of federal money, but every time the federal government threatens to pull funds, the states cry like a newborn baby.

One example is in 1984, when Congress passed legislation requiring states to either raise the minimum age for drinking alcohol to 21, or they would lose 5% of their federal highway dollars. South Dakota went so far as to sue the government, but lost in a 7-2 Supreme Court decision. Nothing in the Constitution requires states to set a drinking age of 21, yet the threat of losing federal highway dollars has caused all 50 states to have a drinking age of 21.

C Reed · Apr 9, 2010

Nils said:
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.

AFAIK no state could provide all of their current services at the current level without federal funding. For example I think Missouri gets $1.62 per $1 of tax money from the federal government.

Also all federal services would be removed. That means border patrol, military, FBI, DHS, Federal Courts, Mints and Money printing, Interstate Highway services, Postal Service, FAA regulations, FDA regulations, CDC, and many more services.

I do not think any state can survive on its own with out the federal support system currently (aka if it where to just vanish) If a state was ready to replace the role plaid by federal government it probably could survive, but at a different level.

funkyb · Apr 9, 2010

C Reed said:
As for justifying my title 1. i'm almost always joking and 2 as several people have pointed out the only way a state can defy federal law is to leave the union. Passing the act is not secession but enforcing it would be, legally.

This is why pot is still illegal in California, despite efforts of the state to legalize it.

Illegal yes, but the state authorities level of enforcement is falling. I hear they've got something on the ballot for full decriminalization (state law only)...in other news, travel agencies are noticing a marked decline in 18-24 year old trips to Europe. :lol:

slcsteve · Apr 9, 2010

Missouri votes To succeed along with the Union.

The Nid Hog · Apr 9, 2010

treydampier said:
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.

Can we open a separate thread for separatists and birthers to post in? This kind of discussion would never be condoned in any barbershop where I ever got my haircut. It saddens me to think that anyone could even joke about secession when they know the price that was paid for it in the past.

Mazeman · Apr 9, 2010

funkyb said:
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.

Then those others would have a lot of work to do. First off, someone should sandblast Moses from our Supreme Court building to secularize things.

Or erase this, from Washington's first Inaugural Address:

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe - who presides in the council of nations - and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States, a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes."

The list is endless.

We were founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. The 1st Amendment says what it says, but for those others to deny our moral foundation is an attempt to re-write history.

Kevan · Apr 9, 2010

treydampier said:
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.

And thus this thread crosses the state line, into CrazyLand, USA.

treydampier · Apr 9, 2010

You are misinformed sir. He has failed to show a birth certificate and failed to release his college transcripts. Also, lets not use our ignorance with words. I am not a separatist, I am a state rights advocate. There is a huge difference. I just feel the federal government has over stepped its bounds and states are fighting back. I just feel its their right to do so. My family was in the civil war and never owned slaves. All we got were higher taxes and unfair treatment for doing nothing wrong. SO go figure.

Obsessed · Apr 9, 2010

Let me lay this out for you:

1. President Obama was born in Hawaii and has released a copy of his birth certificate.

2. Hawaii is part of the U.S

3. President Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Deal with it.

Kevan · Apr 9, 2010

President Obama was a US Senator, yet his citizenship was never an issue prior to 2008. Why? Because he's a U.S. citizen.

If he truly wasn't, you'd think Hillary and the rest of his Dem rivals would've been all over it during the campaign, no?

Third. it's a sad indictment of the level of "anything goes" discourse in this country today that a falsity such as this even got airtime to begin with, much less blew up into an entire movement. A few decades ago craziness such as this wouldn't have even made the airwaves or newspapers, because it's a conspiracy theory with no basis whatsoever in fact.

The same goes for threats of secession. It's not news. More like a cry for attention -- any kind of attention.

airplanedoc · Apr 9, 2010

Since the in before the lock guy hasn't been here yet.

I'm In

mr_economy · Apr 9, 2010

The Nid Hog said:
Can we open a separate thread for separatists and birthers to post in? This kind of discussion would never be condoned in any barbershop where I ever got my haircut. It saddens me to think that anyone could even joke about secession when they know the price that was paid for it in the past.

Big +1. Conspiracy theories have no place in an otherwise rational discussion. They are the realm of closing-time bar rants, not barber shop debate.

slcsteve · Apr 9, 2010

Pick any one of the three offered.........

Broken Record

Beating a dead horse

Bacon

coolbluewater · Apr 9, 2010

Obsessed said:
Let me lay this out for you:

1. President Obama was born in Hawaii and has released a copy of his birth certificate.

Sorry, the short form doesn't count.
How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?
Why do you think he's had his records sealed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvw

No wonder states have "had it up to here"; rise of Oath Keepers, etc.

The current "administration" flies in the face of the Constitution.
I think I'll stop here.

Kevan · Apr 9, 2010

coolbluewater said:
Obsessed said:

Let me lay this out for you:

1. President Obama was born in Hawaii and has released a copy of his birth certificate.

Sorry, the short form doesn't count.
How's that "Hope and Change" working out for you?
Why do you think he's had his records sealed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvw

No wonder states have "had it up to here"; rise of Oath Keepers, etc.

The current "administration" flies in the face of the Constitution.
I think I'll stop here.

Click to expand...

ZOMG!!!11 For realz?!

Next you'll tell me that The Da Vinci Code wasn't a true story!

SRock · Apr 9, 2010

OK gents this thread has worn out its welcome.

Thanks to those who tried to keep it civilized.

Thread Closed.

Search

Missouri Votes To Secede From The Union

funkyb

C Reed

mr_economy

C Reed

funkyb

slcsteve

The Nid Hog

Mazeman

Kevan

treydampier

Obsessed

Kevan

airplanedoc

mr_economy

slcsteve

coolbluewater

Kevan

SRock

Similar threads