If you go by the current logic of Robert’s and the bought and paid for right-wing SCOTUS they should shut down the court. The states can regulate everything, they each have a Court. Now that we’ve determined we don’t need Federal government for that let’s go a step further. Make each state handle everything on their own. The people they …
If you go by the current logic of Robert’s and the bought and paid for right-wing SCOTUS they should shut down the court. The states can regulate everything, they each have a Court. Now that we’ve determined we don’t need Federal government for that let’s go a step further. Make each state handle everything on their own. The people they put in office will have no say in anything outside their state. Oh, and wait, that’s too much governing from Albany to say what Buffalo or NYC should do so each place needs isolated government.
We won’t need federal Congress anymore, send them home. We won’t need a President, each Governor will independently lead their 1/50th of the country. All financial resources will come from their own citizens. No more tax money coming from CA or NY where everyone complains about high taxes. We’ll use that money for ourselves.
The only thing we’ll have at a Federal level will be a representative to oversee Federal lands. Just some small agencies.
This all just sounds ridiculous and you all just thought I was quiet for over a week and must have gone crazy.
But this is exactly what Republicans want to happen. When it does they’ll want to do away with their state government with the exception of banning abortion and voting.
Sorry for the rant. My grandson is doing two 4 week accelerated college classes. One of them is sociology and I’ve been reading the book and helping him study. I am learning so much even though I took this class myself 40 years ago. Things have changed and now that I have more real world knowledge everything I read is so fascinating and relatable. I discuss it with him and try to help him relate. Yesterday’s readings were on mass media and social media and liberals vs. conservatives. Everything I read is what we see happening in front of our eyes.
This professor is doing an excellent job with online education. Thank you to Heather and all the teachers out there that work so hard to expand our world!
Kentucky has a state wide population of nearly 4.5 million. The population of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, is 7 million. It irks the heck out of me that a senator from such a puny state has the power to dismiss/ignore facts, squelch legislation, select SCOTUS nominees and basically run his own power plays on the tax dollars that my region and state as a whole gives to the federal government when his tiny fiefdom takes far more than it pays into the system. SMH…
As a KY resident (anti-Rand/McConnell) I agree, but the ignorant rural constituency truly believe he doing great things for the Commonwealth. One only needs to look at this state to see how McConnell would like the entire country to be like.
Without FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority, many in that area which also includes a big chunk of southwestern Kentucky and parts of five other southern States besides Tennessee, would still be using kerosene lanterns and candles to light their lives. They used to support Democrats but that party's turning away from racism made them into Republicans who never ever did anything to benefit them, and never will, but it enables them to feel superior to people who benefit from the Democrat's safety net, which they forget also benefits them. They will never learn.
It's our compromise-laden horse and buggy Constitution that permits it. But fear not, there will be a new one, including fully representative democracy this time around, but only after the nation recovers from the damage to democracy the 'Founding Fathers' compromises have brought about. (Maybe not in our lifetimes.)
The Constitution was a brilliant conception in the context of the late 1700s. However, besides the compromises you reference, the framers made it too difficult to amend. They could not envision the enormous changes that were ahead, including the growth of the country, geographically and the number of people. Nor could they envision the complexity of challenges we face today.
The idea of the Supreme Court interpreting the original intent of the Constitution to serve the nation of the present is ludicrous. It's a grievous flaw. Another flaw: assuming that Congress would be made up of elected officials committed to governing through constant compromise. Essentially, Republicans have hacked the Constitution by refusing to govern in good faith.
But you forgot about the military? An enormous part of the Federal government. How would they fit in your scenario? 50 independent state military organizations? Who gets the nukes? All 50? These crazy people don't have a long view to see how starting down a path is a straight line to chaos. Though have to admit, living in Illinois, another state that sends more to the Federal government then it gets back, that part sounded attractive.
Oh I did! Being a veteran I don’t know how I didn’t stick them into the Republican scenario. It definitely would be chaos. Maybe someone should ask Empty Greene what happens to the military when Georgia divorces the rest of the country. I served at the base in Valdosta. It has expanded many times over since then. Imagine if they closed up and went to a state that doesn’t want a divorce.
I just think the term “Empty” for her fits so well. She’s an empty vessel that fills up easily with conspiracies and propaganda and she should be emptied like the trash. She’s a danger to society and I don’t understand why people think anything she says is worthwhile. She’s racist, anti-Christian and a bigot and hypocrite.
I grew up in a home where we were forced to go to church on Sunday but my father was a racist and hypocrite. All of his actions went against my Christian upbringing. My mother was the best woman I have ever known and I’m not just saying that because she was my mother. I didn’t put up with the words and actions of my father, frequently told him to his face and won’t put up with it from anyone else. If you don’t speak up things never change.
In reality, I shouldn’t be so flippant. This has to do with the survival of a nation so that it has the chance to live up to its stated principles. And yes, it is existential.
Securing the nation's safety and security from foreign (influences)(threats)(commerce) would easily be the only responsibility of a federal government in a confederacy. It could never be used to settle domestic issues or threats between states. Aren't most military bases now located in conservative (Republican) states?
Leadership and staffing are assigned to those bases. Most officers and noncoms have had training at one or more of the 5 largest training location (4 of 5 in the Southern military communities). The culture comes to the base and supported by a conservative base city. That is the experience of my family members.
I cannot envision a federal government, foreign affairs or the military under a 'national' government if the states separated individually, according to region or political persuasion can you?
This wouldn't work because of the vast array of differences of ideologies, practices, and wealth in state. Florida and Texas and N. Dakota would never work with liberal states to manage our military.
Sharon I can appreciate your frustration. The issue of federal vs. states rights was a critical issue in the replacement of the Articles of Confederation (unanimous state votes required) with the Constitution. The 10th Amendment accorded to states whatever rights not given to the federal government. The ‘nullifaction’ issue in 1831 prompted President Andrew Jackson to mobilize troops to block John Calhoun on ‘states’ rights.’
Whatever we think of the current Stench Court, we can not simply surrender and encourage states to do whatever they wish. This would fragment the United States.
Even the Stench Court has a constitutional obligation to distinguish between states’ and federal rights. Be careful for what you wish for.
I live in Texas and since I vote for people who serve at the federal level I want to vote like my friends in Oregon...by mail and on ballots that are sent to me without having to request them and getting to use ballot boxes. Instead I get to provide all my personal information on the outside ballot envelope (it will be publicly available upon request after the election). Our redistricting is being challenged in court. Our experienced County election judge and her staff have done a great job and have worked valiantly. Our primary is March 1. This is why we need Federal oversight. The voters in all states need fair and free access to voting. Sorry for the rant. Texas is my home and I am doing what I can to make it better.
Sorry Keith, I’m not wishing for it. I was trying to point out how ridiculous these red states talking of “divorce” and SCOTUS trying to say it’s up to the states actually sound and the impression that this is their goal. After all, they’ve manipulated things at the state level so they have all the control and can’t do it as easily at the federal level.
Me thinks that the goal among conservatives is to achieve a confederacy of states, rather than a union. It was the dissenting opinion in 1789 and has remained the belief of conservatives since that time and the intent of the founding fathers so argued by originalists. The current Republican Party is merely the mantle, the robe, for local authority, a nation of self-directed states.
Except when truly local governments want to impose a mask mandate (e.g., St. Augustine, FL) and the Governor signs an Executive Order making it illegal.
That’s right. They also allowed Trump’s Muslim ban as being in the best interest of the nation, but now there’s a democrat in the White House, so that rule is out.
Year is 1789. Can't edit posting. And I am not advocating for that position. Also, not all states in the Confederacy in 1865 were equal in influence and leadership in all things important (military, trade, foreign relations, culture). Those got carried out in a couple of states/capitols.
What's next? Fifty different state passports to travel the country? I doubt there's ever been a Supreme Court that is this radical. It's hell-bent on transforming the country into a place that no one alive today or even in recent generations would recognize. The court is trampling upon decade upon decade of prior rulings establishing the authority of the federal government.
Imagine a country in which its 50 states essentially can do their own thing. A country in which 23 states are fully controlled by Republicans, a party that cares not a whit about fighting climate change, protecting minority and voting rights, and a host of other critical issues.
The Supreme Court is creating fiefdoms. What's next? Gov. Abbott becoming Lord Abbott?
Not for nothing am I calling them out as the STENCH BENCH. With three who should not even be there (the last three appointed), two who lied under oath during confirmation hearings, one who is yet to be investigated for his assaults on women, another whose wife is guilty of sedition, the entire Catholic cabal, the "federalist" bunch who do not even believe in the very Constitution they profess to support, there's really no need at all for them, in my opinion. They have made a mockery of law and do not deserve to wear robes of any sort, except the white kind. I can smell them from here, when the wind from Lord Abbott is not blowing in my direction. His own stench is pretty awful, let me tell you!
Well, there was the Supreme Court that did uphold Plessy's arrest for going into the white train compartment and also noted that "separate but equal is all good with us".
Maybe that Supreme Court and this one have some similarities.
Well, we in CA, have been talking about seceding from the Union. We fight for climate change, fight for abortion, the right to vote, the rights of LGBTQ, etc. We harbor the tech world and clean energy facilities as well as great colleges.
We--Californians--also pay Red States and give them minority rule over the majority. We can even afford to "rent" the military from the (former) US government to protect our international trade. Let every State remit 15% (max) to the vestige of the federal government to "provide for the common defense" and be done with it.
I suggest David Pepper's book, Laboratories of Autocracy because it not only verifies the argument you presented as the Republican plan for their war on democracy, it and published reviews of the book show how Democrat operatives are complicit in letting them do it. What Democrats in Georgia are doing is the best thing possible. They are working to hold their own party operatives accountable, something that Democrats have failed to do with their ridiculous "vote for the lesser evil" admonitions and adhering to the "nothing will fundamentally change" insanity. That steered the country into the situation of rule by the minority in which we find ourselves in which we now realize we will soon have nothing more to lose. That is Dangerous with a capital D to all of us.
Pepper was in great interview yesterday on Sirius Radio.
We'd see the end of states such as Kentucky and other low income states sink and give up without the federal dollars keeping them afloat.
We'd see Hawaii fade due to cut or rapidly increasing costs of goods they need imported there. We'd see tiny civil wars break out and rapid migration of state's citizens and erecting of border walls. It would be completely nuts.
Hawaii would be happy not to be part of the United States. They didn’t want it in the first place and after living there for a few years you can see why. We have done everything to wipe out their cultures and traditions and shove our religion down their throats which is amazing when you consider why people fled to America in the first place. We stopped them from practicing their arts unless it was done in a hotel for the benefit of tourists. I met some very interesting people willing to tell me their stories. I wish I would have gone out everyday and written them down. It’s the first place I really experienced prejudice for being white. In even Korea they did not feel this way. I don’t blame them.
I think there would be regionalization. California and Washington both have strong financial vested interests in Hawaii remaining successful and free of foreign interference; they could contribute to Hawaii paying to "rent" the military to protect the islands. (They could probably pay that "rent" by selling just some of the land the military is still hanging onto there.)
The Ununited States. Coming from Canada, where the threat of Quebec separation has hounded the country from its inception, it has continued to chase its tail throughout my lifetime. My first thought when I moved to the States, (most countries call it that) was that each state has its own flavour, it's own nationality. Fifty different countries.
There's something very basic & tribal about human nature. It just doesn't seem to work very well when the tribe gets too large. Although, like this group, there might be possibilities if there's a common foundation of higher thought & intelligence. I suppose that's what the framers had in mind, although humans, I've found, can be very disappointing.
Judy Does increasing size lead eventually to breakdown? This certainly was true with Athens and the Delian League, despite Athens’ draconian response towards possible deportees. The Greek city states never, for an extended period, worked together. The transition from small hunting tribes to larger populations with an ‘agricultural surplus,’did not lead to permanent larger entities, with the exception of Egypt.
Empires rise and fall. China is a prime example of an ebb and flow, while other empires seem to rise then fall. In the American colonies, the first unifying move was the Articles of Confederation, with unanimity from states for any action. Thanks to Rogue Island, they couldn’t agree to impose taxes. The drafters of the 1787 Constitution clearly did not envisage a country of 50 states, including two non contiguous states, nor the increasing non-Western Europe diversity.
The Civil War was a major effort to split the United States. Back when I rated the credit of Canadian provinces, I was aware of ‘Quebec Libre’ (de Gaulle I found galling on this subject). Nearly 50 years later, this appears more aa threat than a reality. In the United States, it would be difficult to carve off a separate nation. A number of the Southern states are dependent on the surplus taxes from other richer states. Intercontinental free trade has been a hallmark of our economic expansion. The federal military seems essential compared to state National Guards.
Despite the rumblings in various states (Texas?), I can not imagine how these malcontents could ever work out a viable confederation much less a workable constitution.
I applaud your wish for a Platonic foundation of ‘higher thought & intelligence.’ Of course Plato, not trusting the ‘demos’ who condemned Socrates, his teacher, to death, sought rule by philosopher kings. Ain’t going to happen. Czechoslovakia can split into Czech and Slovakia, with a rational division point geographically and economically. The United States will remain with 50 diverse states, despite my personal wish to cut loose Texas, Florida, and perhaps a few other states.
Yes, thank you for all the illumination, it is such a public service and should be required reading for every US citizen! Regarding the above post, Justice Roberts might want to read up on how the Afghani people are fairing with their "lone wolf" government.
That applies to pretty much every Red State. At least half of the American population lives on the Coasts - more than equal to the rest of the States - paying the bulk of Federal Taxes, while being severely under-represented in Congress.
If you go by the current logic of Robert’s and the bought and paid for right-wing SCOTUS they should shut down the court. The states can regulate everything, they each have a Court. Now that we’ve determined we don’t need Federal government for that let’s go a step further. Make each state handle everything on their own. The people they put in office will have no say in anything outside their state. Oh, and wait, that’s too much governing from Albany to say what Buffalo or NYC should do so each place needs isolated government.
We won’t need federal Congress anymore, send them home. We won’t need a President, each Governor will independently lead their 1/50th of the country. All financial resources will come from their own citizens. No more tax money coming from CA or NY where everyone complains about high taxes. We’ll use that money for ourselves.
The only thing we’ll have at a Federal level will be a representative to oversee Federal lands. Just some small agencies.
This all just sounds ridiculous and you all just thought I was quiet for over a week and must have gone crazy.
But this is exactly what Republicans want to happen. When it does they’ll want to do away with their state government with the exception of banning abortion and voting.
Sorry for the rant. My grandson is doing two 4 week accelerated college classes. One of them is sociology and I’ve been reading the book and helping him study. I am learning so much even though I took this class myself 40 years ago. Things have changed and now that I have more real world knowledge everything I read is so fascinating and relatable. I discuss it with him and try to help him relate. Yesterday’s readings were on mass media and social media and liberals vs. conservatives. Everything I read is what we see happening in front of our eyes.
This professor is doing an excellent job with online education. Thank you to Heather and all the teachers out there that work so hard to expand our world!
Kentucky has a state wide population of nearly 4.5 million. The population of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, is 7 million. It irks the heck out of me that a senator from such a puny state has the power to dismiss/ignore facts, squelch legislation, select SCOTUS nominees and basically run his own power plays on the tax dollars that my region and state as a whole gives to the federal government when his tiny fiefdom takes far more than it pays into the system. SMH…
As a KY resident (anti-Rand/McConnell) I agree, but the ignorant rural constituency truly believe he doing great things for the Commonwealth. One only needs to look at this state to see how McConnell would like the entire country to be like.
Without FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority, many in that area which also includes a big chunk of southwestern Kentucky and parts of five other southern States besides Tennessee, would still be using kerosene lanterns and candles to light their lives. They used to support Democrats but that party's turning away from racism made them into Republicans who never ever did anything to benefit them, and never will, but it enables them to feel superior to people who benefit from the Democrat's safety net, which they forget also benefits them. They will never learn.
They will NEVER learn as long as propaganda spews vitriol 24/7.
Did you see Fauci bust Rand Paul? :)
No, where, when
It's our compromise-laden horse and buggy Constitution that permits it. But fear not, there will be a new one, including fully representative democracy this time around, but only after the nation recovers from the damage to democracy the 'Founding Fathers' compromises have brought about. (Maybe not in our lifetimes.)
The Constitution was a brilliant conception in the context of the late 1700s. However, besides the compromises you reference, the framers made it too difficult to amend. They could not envision the enormous changes that were ahead, including the growth of the country, geographically and the number of people. Nor could they envision the complexity of challenges we face today.
The idea of the Supreme Court interpreting the original intent of the Constitution to serve the nation of the present is ludicrous. It's a grievous flaw. Another flaw: assuming that Congress would be made up of elected officials committed to governing through constant compromise. Essentially, Republicans have hacked the Constitution by refusing to govern in good faith.
I agree ... but neither of us will be invited as a guest speaker at the next gathering of the Federalist Society.
Likely only Lincoln recognized the danger from within. Well, FDR too since a coup was plotted in 1933 (reported by Gen Smedley Butler).
I have a friend who estimates 10,000 years
But who will do the counting? "Planet of the Apes" scenario??
I think, but I hope not
Well said, and thank you for this comparison, from someone who lives in Brooklyn, NY.
But you forgot about the military? An enormous part of the Federal government. How would they fit in your scenario? 50 independent state military organizations? Who gets the nukes? All 50? These crazy people don't have a long view to see how starting down a path is a straight line to chaos. Though have to admit, living in Illinois, another state that sends more to the Federal government then it gets back, that part sounded attractive.
Oh I did! Being a veteran I don’t know how I didn’t stick them into the Republican scenario. It definitely would be chaos. Maybe someone should ask Empty Greene what happens to the military when Georgia divorces the rest of the country. I served at the base in Valdosta. It has expanded many times over since then. Imagine if they closed up and went to a state that doesn’t want a divorce.
Florida and Texas too! Big bases in both states
Texas shading purple, or am I dreaming
Did you mean M.T. Greene? Or perhaps Em Tee Greene? (Har, Har.)
I just think the term “Empty” for her fits so well. She’s an empty vessel that fills up easily with conspiracies and propaganda and she should be emptied like the trash. She’s a danger to society and I don’t understand why people think anything she says is worthwhile. She’s racist, anti-Christian and a bigot and hypocrite.
Yes, but how do you REALLY feel?
I grew up in a home where we were forced to go to church on Sunday but my father was a racist and hypocrite. All of his actions went against my Christian upbringing. My mother was the best woman I have ever known and I’m not just saying that because she was my mother. I didn’t put up with the words and actions of my father, frequently told him to his face and won’t put up with it from anyone else. If you don’t speak up things never change.
In reality, I shouldn’t be so flippant. This has to do with the survival of a nation so that it has the chance to live up to its stated principles. And yes, it is existential.
"We'll try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets The Bomb."
There is nothing serene and calm about that scenario!
Obscure cultural reference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw
Lordy, he told us
Hilarious. Never heard of Tom Lehrer, my loss. Thanks.
Who’s next?
Love this! Brilliant!
Securing the nation's safety and security from foreign (influences)(threats)(commerce) would easily be the only responsibility of a federal government in a confederacy. It could never be used to settle domestic issues or threats between states. Aren't most military bases now located in conservative (Republican) states?
California has many bases & it's not conservative.
Leadership and staffing are assigned to those bases. Most officers and noncoms have had training at one or more of the 5 largest training location (4 of 5 in the Southern military communities). The culture comes to the base and supported by a conservative base city. That is the experience of my family members.
Parts of California are.
I cannot envision a federal government, foreign affairs or the military under a 'national' government if the states separated individually, according to region or political persuasion can you?
Perhaps not in a pure confederacy, though we have not yet achieved a true union either. Aspiration and intent unrealized is a great motivator.
This wouldn't work because of the vast array of differences of ideologies, practices, and wealth in state. Florida and Texas and N. Dakota would never work with liberal states to manage our military.
You could be right. Not sure leadership or control would necessarily shared between states or by conservatives with liberal factions in such states.
Eact state remits 15% max to "provide for the common defense" then pays to rent the military when they want to use it.
My worry as well.
The nukes can govern themselves with local militias?
Sharon I can appreciate your frustration. The issue of federal vs. states rights was a critical issue in the replacement of the Articles of Confederation (unanimous state votes required) with the Constitution. The 10th Amendment accorded to states whatever rights not given to the federal government. The ‘nullifaction’ issue in 1831 prompted President Andrew Jackson to mobilize troops to block John Calhoun on ‘states’ rights.’
Whatever we think of the current Stench Court, we can not simply surrender and encourage states to do whatever they wish. This would fragment the United States.
Even the Stench Court has a constitutional obligation to distinguish between states’ and federal rights. Be careful for what you wish for.
SCROTUS - the R is for Republican. (Yes, I stole that from the twitterverse)
Since 2008 I've tended to refer to the "Subprime Court".
I live in Texas and since I vote for people who serve at the federal level I want to vote like my friends in Oregon...by mail and on ballots that are sent to me without having to request them and getting to use ballot boxes. Instead I get to provide all my personal information on the outside ballot envelope (it will be publicly available upon request after the election). Our redistricting is being challenged in court. Our experienced County election judge and her staff have done a great job and have worked valiantly. Our primary is March 1. This is why we need Federal oversight. The voters in all states need fair and free access to voting. Sorry for the rant. Texas is my home and I am doing what I can to make it better.
You don't need to look to a "liberal" state for an example; Utah has done mail-in voting for years.
I just know Oregon because I have family there.
Bravo!!👏🏼👏🏼
Sorry Keith, I’m not wishing for it. I was trying to point out how ridiculous these red states talking of “divorce” and SCOTUS trying to say it’s up to the states actually sound and the impression that this is their goal. After all, they’ve manipulated things at the state level so they have all the control and can’t do it as easily at the federal level.
Me thinks that the goal among conservatives is to achieve a confederacy of states, rather than a union. It was the dissenting opinion in 1789 and has remained the belief of conservatives since that time and the intent of the founding fathers so argued by originalists. The current Republican Party is merely the mantle, the robe, for local authority, a nation of self-directed states.
Except when truly local governments want to impose a mask mandate (e.g., St. Augustine, FL) and the Governor signs an Executive Order making it illegal.
Odd how that works isn’t it? Heads I win, tails you loose. All hypocrisy and double speak.
States rights, unless we need SCOTUS to install a president.
SCROTUS already blew that, too, with the Gore v Bush election.
That’s right. They also allowed Trump’s Muslim ban as being in the best interest of the nation, but now there’s a democrat in the White House, so that rule is out.
Year is 1789. Can't edit posting. And I am not advocating for that position. Also, not all states in the Confederacy in 1865 were equal in influence and leadership in all things important (military, trade, foreign relations, culture). Those got carried out in a couple of states/capitols.
And that takes us all the way back to ancient Greece and a democracy built around city-states... Talk about conservative!
What's next? Fifty different state passports to travel the country? I doubt there's ever been a Supreme Court that is this radical. It's hell-bent on transforming the country into a place that no one alive today or even in recent generations would recognize. The court is trampling upon decade upon decade of prior rulings establishing the authority of the federal government.
Imagine a country in which its 50 states essentially can do their own thing. A country in which 23 states are fully controlled by Republicans, a party that cares not a whit about fighting climate change, protecting minority and voting rights, and a host of other critical issues.
The Supreme Court is creating fiefdoms. What's next? Gov. Abbott becoming Lord Abbott?
Not for nothing am I calling them out as the STENCH BENCH. With three who should not even be there (the last three appointed), two who lied under oath during confirmation hearings, one who is yet to be investigated for his assaults on women, another whose wife is guilty of sedition, the entire Catholic cabal, the "federalist" bunch who do not even believe in the very Constitution they profess to support, there's really no need at all for them, in my opinion. They have made a mockery of law and do not deserve to wear robes of any sort, except the white kind. I can smell them from here, when the wind from Lord Abbott is not blowing in my direction. His own stench is pretty awful, let me tell you!
Well, there was the Supreme Court that did uphold Plessy's arrest for going into the white train compartment and also noted that "separate but equal is all good with us".
Maybe that Supreme Court and this one have some similarities.
Looks to me that this court can rationalize just about anything.
IF the rationalization lines up with who has paid them off, then, absolutely, yes they can.
Well, we in CA, have been talking about seceding from the Union. We fight for climate change, fight for abortion, the right to vote, the rights of LGBTQ, etc. We harbor the tech world and clean energy facilities as well as great colleges.
We--Californians--also pay Red States and give them minority rule over the majority. We can even afford to "rent" the military from the (former) US government to protect our international trade. Let every State remit 15% (max) to the vestige of the federal government to "provide for the common defense" and be done with it.
I suggest David Pepper's book, Laboratories of Autocracy because it not only verifies the argument you presented as the Republican plan for their war on democracy, it and published reviews of the book show how Democrat operatives are complicit in letting them do it. What Democrats in Georgia are doing is the best thing possible. They are working to hold their own party operatives accountable, something that Democrats have failed to do with their ridiculous "vote for the lesser evil" admonitions and adhering to the "nothing will fundamentally change" insanity. That steered the country into the situation of rule by the minority in which we find ourselves in which we now realize we will soon have nothing more to lose. That is Dangerous with a capital D to all of us.
Pepper was in great interview yesterday on Sirius Radio.
I will go look for it after I am done being a study partner in this fast-track sociology class. 4 weeks, 36 hours a week of work.
Sharon, think of the money we’ll save not sending FEMA to rescue folks!
And of course, I’m joking here too. It’s always the same with these states. “We’ll do it ourselves! Help us!!!”
We'd see the end of states such as Kentucky and other low income states sink and give up without the federal dollars keeping them afloat.
We'd see Hawaii fade due to cut or rapidly increasing costs of goods they need imported there. We'd see tiny civil wars break out and rapid migration of state's citizens and erecting of border walls. It would be completely nuts.
Hawaii would be happy not to be part of the United States. They didn’t want it in the first place and after living there for a few years you can see why. We have done everything to wipe out their cultures and traditions and shove our religion down their throats which is amazing when you consider why people fled to America in the first place. We stopped them from practicing their arts unless it was done in a hotel for the benefit of tourists. I met some very interesting people willing to tell me their stories. I wish I would have gone out everyday and written them down. It’s the first place I really experienced prejudice for being white. In even Korea they did not feel this way. I don’t blame them.
One thing I learned while in Hawaii is the second class citizenship that native Hawaiians live. It is appalling.
Or they could try to get help from foreign parties. I’m sure some could find that enticing.
I think there would be regionalization. California and Washington both have strong financial vested interests in Hawaii remaining successful and free of foreign interference; they could contribute to Hawaii paying to "rent" the military to protect the islands. (They could probably pay that "rent" by selling just some of the land the military is still hanging onto there.)
The Ununited States. Coming from Canada, where the threat of Quebec separation has hounded the country from its inception, it has continued to chase its tail throughout my lifetime. My first thought when I moved to the States, (most countries call it that) was that each state has its own flavour, it's own nationality. Fifty different countries.
There's something very basic & tribal about human nature. It just doesn't seem to work very well when the tribe gets too large. Although, like this group, there might be possibilities if there's a common foundation of higher thought & intelligence. I suppose that's what the framers had in mind, although humans, I've found, can be very disappointing.
Judy Does increasing size lead eventually to breakdown? This certainly was true with Athens and the Delian League, despite Athens’ draconian response towards possible deportees. The Greek city states never, for an extended period, worked together. The transition from small hunting tribes to larger populations with an ‘agricultural surplus,’did not lead to permanent larger entities, with the exception of Egypt.
Empires rise and fall. China is a prime example of an ebb and flow, while other empires seem to rise then fall. In the American colonies, the first unifying move was the Articles of Confederation, with unanimity from states for any action. Thanks to Rogue Island, they couldn’t agree to impose taxes. The drafters of the 1787 Constitution clearly did not envisage a country of 50 states, including two non contiguous states, nor the increasing non-Western Europe diversity.
The Civil War was a major effort to split the United States. Back when I rated the credit of Canadian provinces, I was aware of ‘Quebec Libre’ (de Gaulle I found galling on this subject). Nearly 50 years later, this appears more aa threat than a reality. In the United States, it would be difficult to carve off a separate nation. A number of the Southern states are dependent on the surplus taxes from other richer states. Intercontinental free trade has been a hallmark of our economic expansion. The federal military seems essential compared to state National Guards.
Despite the rumblings in various states (Texas?), I can not imagine how these malcontents could ever work out a viable confederation much less a workable constitution.
I applaud your wish for a Platonic foundation of ‘higher thought & intelligence.’ Of course Plato, not trusting the ‘demos’ who condemned Socrates, his teacher, to death, sought rule by philosopher kings. Ain’t going to happen. Czechoslovakia can split into Czech and Slovakia, with a rational division point geographically and economically. The United States will remain with 50 diverse states, despite my personal wish to cut loose Texas, Florida, and perhaps a few other states.
Yes, thank you for all the illumination, it is such a public service and should be required reading for every US citizen! Regarding the above post, Justice Roberts might want to read up on how the Afghani people are fairing with their "lone wolf" government.
Very interesting about creating fiefdoms.
That applies to pretty much every Red State. At least half of the American population lives on the Coasts - more than equal to the rest of the States - paying the bulk of Federal Taxes, while being severely under-represented in Congress.