Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"The Vermont Free State"-God help their poor citizens.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Shameless View Post
    It's about time you confessed to something .I confess that you're making my stomach growl .

    Can't confess to everything...get in real big trouble! I've got top secret stuff locked in my brain that won't go away!
    “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” ~ Jimi Hendrix
    "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." ~ Eleanor Roosevelt
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #62
      About Thomas Naylor....

      Originally posted by FibrillatorD View Post
      It'd be nice to see those numbers at their source.

      Although I have the same inclination, I wonder what your rationale is for pegging third-party politics nerds to support for secession? After all, it was uber-conservative (I wouldn't say "right-wing") southerners that seceded the first time.

      This ties nicely into a lingering question I've been having...
      My rationale stems from the leader's party affiliation--Thomas Naylor is a civil libertarian. In Vermont the movement is called The Second Vermont Republic.
      I also need to make a correction: I referred solely to the Gallup Poll, when I should have stated that those numbers were also gleaned from it by the Libertarian Party. Gallup lumps all third party voters in the Independent category. The LP broke that down into percentage of Libertarians from it. I apologize.
      Here are the numbers:
      Party Affiliation
      The Libertarian Vote
      16 Percent of Voters Are Libertarian, Poll Says
      About the movement and Mr. Naylor:
      Vermont Secession
      Steamboat Springs Newspaper - The Steamboat Local
      The Libertarians on some blogs claim that half of the states have also have a secession movement, but provide no data. Personally, I believe Thomas Naylor is nutty enough to gain more than marginal support.
      I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.-Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #63
        Vermont wants to secede from the Union? What a joke. If Vermont seceded from the Union all the President would do is bring all national Guard Units under Federal Control, occupy Vermont, declare Martial Law, disband the Vermont Legislature, arrest Vermont's Governor and than all the tree huggers would run for Canada. After that new elections would be held in Vermont and after the new state Government is elected the State would have to be re-apply to Congress to be a readmitted to the USA as the State of Vermont. If the people in Vermont decided not to be a State than Vermont remain Federally occupied Territory under jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
        What the tree huggers in Vermont do not realize is that all members of the US military swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, and if Vermont Seceded it would become a DOMESTIC threat to the Constitution of the USA.
        Last edited by JMH; 15 Jul 07,, 13:37.

        Comment


        • #64
          When the Alaska Independence party wanted to hold a plebisite on the question of secession, the state refused to put it on the ballot. The head of the party, Kohlhaas, sued the state and lost. The state supreme court's decision quoted a US Surpeme Court decision ruling that states cannot secede. The logic is very compelling and convincing. I made the key section bold letters. The Vermonters can play at secession to make their political points, but they won't succeed unless 3/4 of states approve of it in a consitutional amendment. Hope this doesn't end the good BBQ info.


          Kohlhaas maintains that Texas v. White contains highly
          suspect reasoning because it fails to discuss the Ninth and
          Tenth Amendments. He argues that because the Constitution is
          otherwise silent on secession, secession is one of the rights
          reserved by those amendments. The decision quotes the Tenth
          Amendment almost exactly and discusses at great length the rights
          of the states and the people within the Union:
          Under the Constitution, though the powers of
          the States were much restricted, still, all
          powers not delegated to the United States,
          nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to
          the States respectively, or to the people. .
          . . [T]he people of each State compose a
          State, having its own government, and endowed
          with all the functions essential to separate
          and independent existence[;] . . . without
          the States in union, there could be no such
          political body as the United States. Not
          only, therefore, can there be no loss of
          separate and independent autonomy to the
          States, through their union under the
          Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably
          said that the preservation of the States, and
          the maintenance of their governments, are as
          much within the design and care of the
          Constitution as the preservation of the Union
          and the maintenance of the National
          government. The Constitution, in all its
          provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,
          composed of indestructible States. When,
          therefore, Texas became one of the United
          States, she entered into an indissoluble
          relation. All the obligations of perpetual
          union, and all the guaranties of republican
          government in the Union, attached at once to
          the State. The act which consummated her
          admission into the Union was something more
          than a compact; it was the incorporation of a
          new member into the political body. And it
          was final. The union between Texas and the
          other States was as complete, as perpetual,
          and as indissoluble as the union between the
          original States. There was no place for
          reconsideration, or revocation, except
          through revolution, or through consent of the
          States.[22]

          Furthermore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Tenth
          Amendment in a manner contrary to the interpretation Kohlhaas
          urges. In considering whether states could impose term limits on
          their federal legislators, the Court held that the Amendment
          could only reserve that which existed before.23 Thus The states
          can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out
          of the existence of the national government . . . . No state can
          say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed. 24 Like
          representation in Congress, secession from the Union springs from
          joinder to the Union. No state possessed a right to secede
          before admission, and so no state would retain such a right under
          the Tenth Amendment.


          Kohlhaas v. State (11/17/2006) sp-6072, 147 P3d 714
          Last edited by JAD_333; 15 Jul 07,, 19:56.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by smalltexan View Post
            The Libertarians on some blogs claim that half of the states have also have a secession movement, but provide no data.
            He's probably right. Secession movements are common and go back a long way. Counties and cities also try to secede, unually to improve their administration. A group tired of state control tried to get NYC to secede from the state in order to create a new state.

            Speaking of Vermont, Killington, where I used to ski, tried to secede from Vermont and join New Hampshire--over a tax sharing controversy.

            West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the civil war and Lincoln made it a state, the only state not admitted according to constitutional process. Hmmm, maybe we can get it back. On second thought, it's a mess--$2bil in the red and growing.

            Texas is a hotbed of secession movements. Long live the Republic of Texas!
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by JMH View Post
              What the tree huggers in Vermont do not realize is that all members of the US military swore an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, and if Vermont Seceded it would become a DOMESTIC threat to the Constitution of the USA.
              This is an old post but im sure someone could explain this to me. How would Vermont seceding from the union make them a threat? As you said, the president could bring the national guard under federal control, so there goes vermonts military, and Vermont doesnt have the man power or the funds to create an army, so im curious about what kind of threat we could pose.

              Comment


              • #67
                Actually, the Vermont National Guard would be in a bit of a pickle; they also swore an oath to the Vermont Constitution. They might very well simply dissolve, and form a Veront Militia with the same units and equipment; particulalry if the VT TAG issued a blanket discharge order. Anything is possible in a revolution (as unlikely as the entire issue is).

                In the same vein, what happens to the Puerto Rico National Guard in the event that a plebisite for independence is successful? Again, unlikely, but that particular referendum has been held more than once, and is not unconstitutional. Ture, Puerto Rico is not a state, but the members of the PRNG swore the same oath.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Nice Hyperbole

                  All this over 125 people.

                  VT ARNG has done 2 tours to Iraq and A'stan.

                  Don't see any need to question their patriotism in this manner.

                  Secession was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court Texas v White 1869
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I don't question their patriotism one bit; clearly a movement of 125 is not going to be successful in having a state even consider secession. In the event that this was an actual popular movement (which it isn't even remotely close to), then determining WHICH patriotism takes prescesdence might be an issue.

                    A post-Civil War Supreme Court decision is entirely irrelevant in the (amazingly unlikely) case of a state actually deciding to secede. At that point, it is a decision that will be made by the legislative and executive branches, or by force of arms, one way or another. Try fighting a Civil War on FOX news, though....

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Albany Rifles View Post
                      All this over 125 people.

                      VT ARNG has done 2 tours to Iraq and A'stan.

                      Don't see any need to question their patriotism in this manner.

                      Secession was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court Texas v White 1869
                      I wonder if the Serbs have something in their constitution that says secession is illegal?

                      I've always found "secession was declared unconstitutional" argument laughable. I'm sure the British said the same thing about the Colonies when the war started. The state losing land always makes that argument. If a majority of a state want to leave, they're going to, the only way you can force them not to is to come in and shoot them (what else are you going to do? say "How dare you not pay your taxes to the IRS! We're not giving you money anymore!" which would actually help independence), and when the U.S. does that we'd become no different than any stupid African dictatorship. The U.S. Army going into Vermont to shoot all of them, that'll be the day.

                      Plus, anyone that thinks secession is illegal must correlate their statement with this one from The Declaration of Independence. It was written by a guy you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson. And I personally respect the opinion of Thomas Jefferson on the issue of secession a bit more than others. He's not talking about some American right that's made legal or illegal by politicians, he's talking about a universal right that God gave to men once they entered this world:

                      When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

                      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
                      Ultimately, secession's not taking place now or anytime in at least the next 25 years because life is good. Issues like this never occur when life is good, only when life is bad and people are pissed off. It'll also happen when the U.S. government has declined in quality and no longer practices many of the ideals we hold to be true currently.
                      Last edited by rj1; 26 Aug 08,, 17:44.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by rj1 View Post
                        ...anyone that thinks secession is illegal must correlate their statement with this one from The Declaration of Independence. It was written by a guy you may have heard of, Thomas Jefferson. And I personally respect the opinion of Thomas Jefferson on the issue of secession a bit more than others. He's not talking about some American right that's made legal or illegal by politicians, he's talking about a universal right that God gave to men once they entered this world:
                        The primary reason for the Declaration was to explain to Americans why the colonies were dissolving their bonds with England; it did not argue that they had a God-given right to. You may be confusing the "inalienable rights" with states rights. The former had to do with men, not states. The idea was that states should respect those rights. How are Vermonters being denied their rights by the state(s)? If you mean being denied the right to exit the Union, there
                        is no such right.

                        Ultimately, secession's not taking place now or anytime in at least the next 25years because life is good. Issues like this never occur when life is good, only when life is bad and people are pissed off.
                        Life hasn't always been good in the US: depressions, wars, epidemics, disasters. The states banding together on the national level deal with such problems and pretty effectively on the whole, albeit sometimes slowly. And they bring a collective power to them that one state can not. How would, for example, Louisiana been able to pay for rebuilding in the aftermath of Katrina without the help of all the states. Some states may disagree with a particular solution, but they all agreed to abide by the decision of the majority when they joined the Union.

                        It'll also happen when the U.S. government has declined in quality and no longer practices many of the ideals we hold to be true currently.
                        Conceivably. But PEOPLE are the national government; the congress PEOPLE elect are the national government. When truly concerned PEOPLE become worried about where the country is headed they go out and do something about it. They don't pick up their ball and go home, and they don't sit around and just moan about it.
                        To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Secession? The good citizens of Vermont should secede from that looney state. T

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                            The primary reason for the Declaration was to explain to Americans why the colonies were dissolving their bonds with England; it did not argue that they had a God-given right to.
                            So you're arguing it's dead paper that has no relevance to our daily lives or offers any insight on how we should see our own government?

                            You may be confusing the "inalienable rights" with states rights. The former had to do with men, not states. The idea was that states should respect those rights. How are Vermonters being denied their rights by the state(s)? If you mean being denied the right to exit the Union, there
                            is no such right.
                            So Kosovars are not allowed to exit Serbia because they were a part of a state beforehand and could vote in an election?

                            Conceivably. But PEOPLE are the national government
                            If people are the national government, wouldn't that also mean they are the state government as well? So doesn't that mean the state could throw off the national?

                            When truly concerned PEOPLE become worried about where the country is headed they go out and do something about it. They don't pick up their ball and go home, and they don't sit around and just moan about it.
                            Let me provide my example. I know my opinion does not matter. A majority of Democrats hate my political philosophy and a majority of Republicans hate my political philosophy. And there will never never never be a third alternative in mainstream American politics because Americans are incapable of thinking in three dimensions, politics is required by Americans' line of thinking to be a football game. One side wins, the other loses...even if both sides were wrong to begin with. So I have no voice over political discourse because of the decisions and whims of others and I am disenfranchised because of it.

                            I'm concerned about where the country is headed right now...and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. There's no money for our commitments to future generations in the long-term, the military is overstretched and underfunded and the equipment that is deployed right now is in serious need of repair or replacement; military expertise among enlisted is severely lacking because of the lack of training they receive, in the case of Iraq we were heavily dependent on private corporations (which do jobs based on profit, not on patriotism) to do maintenace to just keep our fleets flying, and the military leadership are doing nothing to fix this potential glaring hole in the case of a future war; our two political parties are making commitments and promises to their stakeholders they cannot keep; our country right now is being ran on the backs of foreign countries because Americans don't want to pay the full cost of government; most of those foreign governments that are funding our debt don't like us, and that's not sustainable long-term; the government is socializing large businesses that the common taxpayer will be hurt by and will have to pay for even though most are blameless; people are living outside their means, sometimes encouraged by government policies, and that has been, is, and will continue to cause widespread bankruptcies; and both parties recognize there's an energy problem but both continue to only make sure that the other cannot do what they want to actually solve the problem!

                            Now how many times did you hear those issues discussed in the run-up to this election? And if you did, was there anything materially done about them? Seriously, no one cares about my opinion. There's a community of people like me and we don't have a horse. I know that and I have accepted that long ago. I've just accepted no one cares what I think and my job is to be Nero, fiddle while everything around me burns. For example, I tried to warn friends of mine to not buy houses 2-3 years ago because the prices were going to come down and they would be upside down on their mortgages. They ignored me quite tritely a few times. I just accepted that, shut up, and I let them make their own mistakes, and they now regret it.

                            Let's go to elections. Let's use my state in the 2004 presidential election.

                            I am a North Carolina resident, when I vote, I do not vote for who will win the national election, I vote for who North Carolina thinks should win the national election. Therefore, we only vote in the North Carolina election for president, not a national election for president. Let's say I was a Bush voter in North Carolina in 2004. Here is the results for North Carolina in 2004:

                            Bush 1961166 votes
                            Kerry 1525849
                            Badnarik 11731
                            Other/Write-ins 2261

                            Let's say I decided beforehand not to go. Here is the effect of my decision to not vote on the polls:

                            Bush 1961165 votes
                            Kerry 1525849
                            Badnarik 11731
                            Other/Write-ins 2261

                            So I got in a car, used up gasoline, stood in a line, hurt my productivity on other activities, etc. to increase Bush's winning margin from 435316 votes to 435317. Wow. I could've instead voted for Kerry, that would've made the winning margin 435315. You could make the same case for any North Carolina voter in 2004. And the fallacy of the American electoral system is that a candidate receives the same thing if they win a state 85-15 as if they do 51-49. I've always felt sorry for D.C. and Utah voters. And then there's the notion of the two candidates that we decided on back in 2004. I asked myself then, "How can we possibly be the greatest nation in the world, if these two dumbsh*ts are the best we can do?" Oh well, I know how 1976 voters felt with Carter and Ford.

                            Take the coming 2008 presidential election, increased black turnout or not, John McCain is winning North Carolina, I think we all know that. Now I'll still go vote in November because I'm a sucker, but it's not because I think I actually have a voice in our nation's government. And if I do vote for McCain, I don't get to attach any nuance to it, my vote counts the same as a pro-choice Seattle Republican and the same as a Texas Militia member that believes Mexican immigration could be fixed if we just used guns. Their views are unimportant, just their vote is.

                            I'll vote, my vote will continue to be irrelevant, and I'll continue to talk about the fact that our leaders are ignoring Americans' concerns and troubles and that the inevitable effect of that will be the same one Daniel Shays and his followers took if they don't start fixing this country's problems.

                            (well, there's my long-winded response)
                            Last edited by rj1; 27 Aug 08,, 03:09.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by sourkraut115 View Post
                              Actually, the Vermont National Guard would be in a bit of a pickle; they also swore an oath to the Vermont Constitution. They might very well simply dissolve, and form a Veront Militia with the same units and equipment; particulalry if the VT TAG issued a blanket discharge order. Anything is possible in a revolution (as unlikely as the entire issue is).

                              In the same vein, what happens to the Puerto Rico National Guard in the event that a plebisite for independence is successful? Again, unlikely, but that particular referendum has been held more than once, and is not unconstitutional. Ture, Puerto Rico is not a state, but the members of the PRNG swore the same oath.
                              Vermont doesn't currently have a separate State Guard, although they do have statutes authorizing one in case of an emergency. Nor, for that matter does NH, next door, although, interestingly, both states do have laws in place authorizing the reciprocal crossing of the state border by State Guard units in "hot pursuit" of armed insurgents/criminals.

                              There are movements in both states to institute such armed bodies, but they have faltered because the NH supporters tend to be libertarians, while the VT supporters include a strong strain of true collectivists. Neither state group truly trusts the other, and Vermont's largely unarmed hippie socialists don't trust the armed authoritarian collectivists.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Yes it is

                                So you're arguing it's dead paper that has no relevance to our daily lives or offers any insight on how we should see our own government?

                                The Declaration of Independence is a wonderful document but it has no bearing on the way our government is run today.

                                We are governed by the Constitution, as amended. We have never been governed by the Declaration of Independence. It explained our reasoning for our actions but it was not a guideline for governing. The 2nd Continental Congress struggled with governing in part because it had no authorization to govern. It wasn't unitl the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 we had any formal basis for our government.

                                As JAD-333 pointed out since the states are in a compact under the Consitution, the 1867 Supreme Court decision, which was decided by jurists and not politicians, declared states did not have the right to secede. I am not concerned about 250 nutjobs in Vermont, or a like number in Montana, Alabama, California, Wisonsin or elsewhere. That has already been decided.

                                Oh, and as for politicians?

                                1. You get what you vote for.

                                2. Jefferson, Adams, Deane, Washington, Lincoln, Carroll, Franklin, rush, et al, were ALL politicians. They are just a little more venerated than most because of what they accomplished.
                                “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                                Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X