I’m beginning to believe that a number of our United 50 States – mostly in the South and on the ‘frontier’ of the early 1800’s – would prefer to let their Federation membership lapse.
To wit: Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed a bill Friday that demands the Federal government relinquish control of pubic lands in Utah by 2014.
If their “demands” aren’t met, will they be taking hostages I wonder?
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
Interesting concept.
LikeLike
I like the new photo of you. Whose shoulder is it?
LikeLike
You know! 🙂
LikeLike
Well, it’s Utah, so they’ll probably take our beer and comfortable underwear hostage if their demands aren’t met.
LikeLike
What should be thought of is not a succession issue, culturally improbable and legally a constitutional Gordian Knot, but the now palpable dislike of how the Federal Powers are perceived at the local level.
LikeLike
I agree with you about how it reflets pubic perception, but this sort of stuff takes it to a whole new level.
LikeLike
The “union” is broken – it’s been broken since the War of Northern Aggression – and the “house divided.” Secession and dissolution makes a certain amount of sense at this point, though I see no actual positive outcome from it.
LikeLike
The Republic is as it always has been with the States. It is the Federal Government that has overstepped via the Commerce Clause in a attitude of we-know-best and thou-shalt-obey in relations to the States. The States, like addicts, have become addicted to the Federal funding that everyone thinks magically appears fro the treasure. In fact it is taken right from the pockets of the “workers” of the middle class and “the job creators” then given to the “takers” in exchange for their blind obedience in the maintenance of political status quo.
LikeLike
True, but what is the Republic or the “Union” but the federal government? It is, as a matter of practicality as opposed to belief or traditions, only the framework of the federal government that binds the States together. If it is broken due to its overreach, then the Republic is broken.
LikeLike
The Republic is as defined “a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.”. The Federal Government is in no way the Republic. It’s the central assumption of the elected officials that it is forming the crux of the issue. The rights and responsibilities of the individual States and the individual Citizenry has been supplanted by the lack of accountability of the Federal Government that has decided that “they” own the life of the individual.
LikeLike
Within the context of secession, the Republic is nothing but the framework of laws and agreements that create a central government and the specifics of the modern iteration of that framework are no longer tenable.
You’re definition of the Republic isn’t wrong and, were it still adhered to by the federal government, we’d not be in this current mess. It’s just a more philosophical definition than the utterly pragmatic one I work under.
You and I really aren’t arguing. We’re just speaking past each other.
LikeLike
I’m starting to think that I might be willing to let them do that if I can get a liberal Cascadia Region out of it 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: What do you call it? | Whatever Works
film bookmarks Hmm it seems like your site ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I had written and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to everything. Do you have any tips for newbie blog writers? I’d really appreciate it.
LikeLike
383532 554757Aw, this became an really good post. In thought I would like to devote writing such as this moreover – taking time and actual effort to make a quite very good article… but exactly what do I say… I procrastinate alot and by no indicates uncover a strategy to get something completed. 776233
LikeLike