Today on Blogcritics
Home » Uncategorized » State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You may not have heard much about it, but there's a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty in America and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:

""The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it's time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying "enough" to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

There's a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma's bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.

Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.

It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.

The text of the bill proposed in Arizona makes the clearest statement of the intent to block unfunded mandates:

"That this Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

and

"That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed."

What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832, when the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don't have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.

Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri's bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right fo the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire's bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullifcation, which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii's proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.

As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Just one little dampener on your breathless enthusiasm. Twenty states considering sovereignty bills does not necessarily mean that there is majority support for those bills in the state legislatures.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    To back up Doc, I read it the same way. Are there any states where such provisions truly have a reasonable chance of passing?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Don’t accuse me of excessive enthusiasm. If you read the article, it is intended at least in part to debunk those who seem to have gotten the impression that some of these laws have ALREADY passed, which they have not.

    I think the one in Oklahoma will probably pass. It passed the House 92-3 a couple of months ago. Some of the other bills are very, very controversial. New Hampshire’s was introduced yesterday and when people see the wording I think some are going to be pretty nervous about it.

    My guess is that Oklahoma, Arizona and Washington will pass. Their bills are straightforward and widely supported. Missouri’s is pretty radical, but they did pass an anti-gay referendum so it might pass too.

    Just the fact that we’re looking at so many of them all being introduced more or less at the same time is pretty signficant. Sends a message to Congress, not that they are listening.

    Dave

  • Hope and Change?

    Did anyone see “King Barry of The Tax Cheats” routine tonight?

    He still thinks he is running for something…did anyome notice every once in a while he would…get off message and look disoriented. Either the teleprompter was broken or the “brutha smoked a blunt on Airforce One….”

    If this guy is best that America can do…my 11 year old son is doomed to grow up in the ruins of a once great country. The more exposure Barry gets his ratings get lower, the less confidence Americans have in the economy and in government.

    His presidency is turning into the biggest case of “buyers remorse” in history.

  • lominac

    If the dollar collapses in the future and deficits are out of sight, etc. then a smart move for a state or group of states would be to secede and form a new nation. The new nations created could then dump the entire colossal federal debt. The US military guys would go along because they wouldn’t be getting paid or their money would be worthless. This is something that could happen very quickly if the currency became worthless.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    I think your “breathless enthusiasm” is apparent in your words.

    I see such action as blatently stupid. In the larger world, our states are nearly irrelevant. While there is commerce carried out between American states and other countries, when it comes to politics and military issues, foreign countries don’t come and talk to the Idaho State Legislature or the Governor of Rhode Island. They deal with the Federal government.

    Individual states asserting their supposed Constitutional rights could go a long way in weakening the country as a whole. States could conceivably go to war against each other over any number of possibly contentious issues. I could forsee having to go through “check points” or even some version of customs – having to present “papers” to move from state to state.

    The founders came down more heavily for states’ rights owing to their fear and distrust of a strong central government because of their very recent dealings with England and its excesses.

    This is a far different world we live in now than when Ben and John and James, etal hammered out the Constitution.

    States flexing their muscles and asserting their right to ignore or nullify federal mandates can only lead to chaos. Your notion of its possible positive effect is, I believe, naive.

    BTW – if what lominac suggests should occur, how long does anyone think any of these newly formed unions survive? How many other countries would be poised and ready to swallow them whole? Or do you imagine that some of those guys camping out in the Michigan woods in their camouflage outfits would spring up and save us all for god and uh, country? To which of these newly formed “countries” would the bulk of our current military repledge its allegiance? Might not the navy adhere to coastal states? Actually, I suppose the army and airforce would all gather in Texas and Oklahoma or the southwest in general. That’d be great. Ya’ll could make George king and “Big Dick” his creepy, snearing Rasputin.

    B

  • bliffle

    How does this work if, say, a President decides to Preemptively attack Canada, who he suspects of having a secret Nuke WMD program. To do so he calls up the National Guards of the various states as reserves.

    Then what?

  • pablo

    “Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

    I take issue with the author’s characterization of the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution as being left to the states. In point of fact only the 10th amendment has to do with states rights. The 9th amendment is as follows:

    “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    This little known amendment has nothing to do with states rights, but individual rights of persons.

    Nalle is similar in tone to former rejected Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork, who attempted in his confirmation hearings to link the 9th and 10th amendments together, and also to say that nobody knows what the 9th amendment means and that it is an ink blot on the constitution.

    It is quite clear the meaning and intent of the ninth amendment as laid out by James Madison, that it was inserted into the constitution so that it could not be inferred that if a right is not laid out in the constitution, then the people dont have that right. I suggest all freedom loving people read and examine the 9th amendment carefully, as it has been feared and abhored by the Supreme Court for the last 200 years, because the implications in it are that the people are free, and the government is limited.

    I am not surprised however that Mr (libertarian) Nalle would attempt to link the 9th and 10th to the states, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Furthermore the 10th amendment is very clear that it leaves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the “states” or to the “people”, whereas in the 9th amendment the states are not mentioned for very good reason, the 9th has to do with individual rights, not states rights.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Pablo, I agree entirely that individual rights should always be paramount. If you read a bit more closely you’ll see that I’m not stating MY opinion of the 9th and 10th amendments in the first paragraph of the article, but restating the position taken in these bills. In fact, a position stated very specifically in a couple of them – follow the links. So your usual attempt to make me the scapegoat fails because you’ve neglected to actually pay attention to what the article is saying.

    It may be somewhat off-base, but not surprising as it is coming from state legislatures rather than individuals. Inevitably there’s a certain amount of self-interest on the part of state government in these proposals.

    And B-tone. I think that at this point it may be necessary to cede some power from the federal government to the states and to the citizens in order to strengthen and even save the Republic. Unbalanced as power is in the nation right now, with the bloated and domineering federal system, if we don’t do something to spread authoritty around the way the founders intended the government may just collapse under its own weight. Better to make these adjustments voluntarily than to be forced into more radical and dangerous territory through inaction.

    Dave

  • Brunelleschi

    Is this really a case of states wanting to turn to an 18th century political document and go back to “what the book says to do?”

    Or is this just a case of states seeing the need to reset the “price-point?”

    It’s a little of both.

    It is natural and expected to use the “Founding Farters” said this or that argument-it fits the GOP way of thinking. But, the Farters didn’t think about Social Security, Interstate highways, local benefits of military bases and defense contracts, funding for research that makes it’s way to universities, GPS systems that use satellites, the FAA that keeps air travel safe, the internet.. add your own.

    People just forget these things when the price gets too high to keep playing. I don’t fault the states for pushing back, but they really don’t have to look back that far to support their protests.

  • Maurice

    Well written article, Dave.

    Brunelleschi – Don’t be so quick to dismiss the Founding Fathers (reminds me of Al Gores’ flipant question – “Who are these guys?”). The Founding Fathers were thoughtful and intelligent men that had very good reasons for the things they wrote. James Madison (the author of the Consitution) said, “There is nothing in the Constitution about Charity”. In other words he had high hopes that Social Security and other charities would never become part of the federal government. They knew that once the pandoras box of federal favors to ‘some’ was opened that we would be no longer free.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I still believe you are ignoring the possible can of worms that could be opened if such actions are taken by individual states. As you note, most such proposals differ widely. What do you suppose might happen if most or all of the states enacted their own legislation to take back power from the Federal government, every one of them perhaps different in significant ways from the others? What effect might that situation have on the things that Brun cites above?

    Do you believe that the Feds would just sit back and let it happen? I can imagine more instances like Wacko – er Waco happening as people decide to take up arms against the Feds. There are any number of individuals and groups out and about just itching for such an opportunity.

    Again, I look upon state government as being more and more irrelevant as the nation becomes more and more homogenous and interdependent in pretty much all areas of human endeavor. More and more, the basic job of state and local government is simply to deal with the nuts and bolts of day to day government, commerce and so forth, and to perhaps act as a conduit and sounding board between the populace and the Federal government.

    Individual identity with a particular state is becoming a thing of the past. People working in the corporate world rarely stay in one state for long. I remember years ago someone relating to me that IBM stood for “I’ve been moved.”

    I was born and have lived most of my life in Indianapolis. Yet, I don’t have any particular feeling for or attachment to Indiana over anywhere else. Had we the means, my wife and I would be out of here in a shot.

    B

  • Clavos

    Nicely put, Maurice, and good to hear from you again…

  • Clavos

    Had we the means, my wife and I would be out of here in a shot.

    Why?

    Unless you’re talking about leaving the US altogether, I don’t see why. By your own argument, Indy is no different from Miami, which is no different from New York, which is no different from LA, etc.

    Obviously, I don’t agree with your argument. In Miami, even the language is different — not officially, but de facto.

    To quote an old Florida tourism advertising slogan:

    “Florida. The rules are different here.”

    And we like it that way.

  • Cindy D

    “Landholders ought to have a share in the government
    to support these invaluable interests and check the other many. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” -James Madison

    Yeah, he was a real prince. Wouldn’t want that rabble creating a tyranny over the opulent.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    The “differences” you cite are at most cultural, and on the whole superficial. They do not alter the fact that Florida has a myriad of interdependencies with other states and the Federal government. Do you really believe that things would be better if the states became, in effect, little fiefdoms, controlled by small time petty pols?

    It could be said that Florida has distinct regions that differ widely from each other. Miami is unlike anywhere else in many respects, the same could be said for the Keys, both of which differ from say, Orlando which differs from Tallahassee or Appalachacola. Should perhaps each of these regions and others be considered as separate entities and not part of the larger whole which is Florida?

    To a lesser extent Indiana has different regions. The whole area around Gary, East Chicago, Hammond, etc. is different in many respects to Indianapolis or Ft. Wayne or Evansville. It would make far more sense if that area was governmentally attached to Chicago. Chicago is unlike anything else in Illinois. The same could certainly be said of New York City and the rest of New York state. As I recall, Norman Mailer, among others asserted that NYC should be a separate state.

    The fact is, though, IMO it matters little as regards the bigger picture. Like it or not we live in a world economy that individual states would be ill equipped to deal with on behalf of its citizens. Some might flourish, but most would likely get the crap kicked out of them.

    The across the board dislike, hatred even, of the Federal government is irrational and counter productive.

    If we could afford to leave Indiana, it is possible that we would move to Germany, but we would more likely go to NYC or perhaps Chicago. Yes, they are different to Indy in many respects, but mainly by degree and lifestyle. In Midtown Manhattan you can get a “Big Mac” which has the same “two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun” that you can buy in Sarasota or Terre Haute.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, the problem is that you read that quote and see it as a negative. Others who are more sensible see it as a positive.

    And B-tone, you’re just wrong about state governments. They are the primary providers for most of the government services you depend on. They provide law enforcement, infrastructure, the legal system. The federal government could not handle all of these things efficiently over such a large country. That’s why we have divided powers.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    Others who are more sensible…

    Now, what if the “others” are not the opulent? And based on the quote, they are the majority. Are they less “sensible” because they are not rich?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    They are sensible in that they realize that if we don’t protect the rights of the rich, we will not protect their right to become rich or to generally profit from the fruits of their labor.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    B-tone,

    What Dave said.

    To which I’ll add (not entirely facetiously):

    …fiefdoms, controlled by small time petty pols?

    That’s a dead on description of the federal miasma, although your description of the pols is a tautology.

  • Brunelleschi

    Maurice-

    I’l let my parents know when they get their much-needed SS check each month that they are not free.

    I have a lot of respect for what he founding farters left us to work with. What other nation can boast 44 peaceful changes of power? That’s quite an impressive number and worthy of great respect. I salute them.

    But their work was done in a different time and place. To say the only way to think about modern problems is to turn to “it is written” is too close to religion.

    We should just be practical about it, that’s all.

    Modern people have brains too.

  • http://www.CentrePointNews.org Michael Carl

    CentrePoint News had a story on eight states that are pursuing sovereignty legislation. The most dramatic of these is Hawaii. The question we have to have is that most of these bills have been submitted since Obama took office. Yet, four or five of them are in states that Obama carried.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Michael, most of these bills have been in the works since last year or much longer. A couple of them were first submitted in the 1990s.

    As you mention, the Hawaii bill is one of the most radical. It basically adds up to secession from the union.

    But read the link to the New Hampshire bill – which was only submitted earlier this week. In many ways it is really the most radical of all and it’s very, very specific about what they find objectionable.

    Dave

  • http://jasonjcampbell.org/blog.php Jason J. Campbell

    Great article Dave!!

    With respect to your claim that, “For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government”

    would you then anticipate that as we get further into an economic hole, the viability of state sovereignty becomes all the more attractive? and if so, what reassurance can the federal gov. give states not to explore this alternative?

  • Cindy D

    Jason comes out to play. yay! Great articles Jason.

  • http://jasonjcampbell.org/blog.php Jason J. Campbell

    Thanks Cindy :) I couldn’t resist the state sovereignty argument…too intriguing to pass on.

  • Mooja

    I read the article twice and can’t find a link to the NH so though i’d add it here.

    I couldn’t agree more with the intent of the bill.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave,

    Yeah, the nuts and bolts. Many of those services are provided in whole or in part via Federal funding, without which many of them would be severely curtailed or disappear entirely. A few years ago Indianapolis received money via a federal grant to hire 200 additional police personnel. About 3 years later, the grant had run its course, but the state failed to pick up the slack. The result being that most of those 200 were summarily laid off.

    State, city and other local government entities have long been targets of and vehicles for fraud and corruption that put most of the shenanigans at the Federal level to shame. The “good ole boy” network remains alive and well in many states, cities and towns across the country.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    A few years ago Indianapolis received money via a federal grant to hire 200 additional police personnel. About 3 years later, the grant had run its course, but the state failed to pick up the slack. The result being that most of those 200 were summarily laid off.

    This is exactly the problem. The federal government pushes these programs on the states and then the states are stuck with them and can’t afford to maintain them. In many cases they can’t cut the program and are forced to find money somewhere to pay for programs they can’t afford.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well, wait a minute. It is the city of Indianapolis that sought this grant from the Feds. The city knew it was not a permanent deal, that they would have to find the funds to continue it after the 3 years the grant covered. Neither the city nor the state had the wherewithal to fund the additional boys (and girls) in blue. So who dropped the ball here?

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Hey, I never said local government was without fault. You would think that if they knew the money was going to run out they would have hired fewer cops for a longer period for the same money, but then I’m not a 6-figure a year city manager.

    Dave

  • Deborah

    I really liked your article, and find that many of the negative comments on here are silly and resort to name-calling instead of logic.

    Thank you for posting this!

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    They are sensible in that they realize that if we don’t protect the rights of the rich, we will not protect their right to become rich or to generally profit from the fruits of their labor.

    They don’t need to become rich Dave. And likely they won’t. That is nothing but a carrot dangled to keep everyone believing in the American dream.

    And, by the way, what does that have to do with the landowners having a share in the government–to support the interests of the rich and check the interests of everyone else. That is what Madison said.

  • Brunelleschi

    I am so good, I shall quote myself-

    “The right sees problems coming from people making less than they do. It’s always the fault of the people they perceive as below them on food chain.

    The left sees problems coming from people making more than they do. It’s always the fault of people they perceive as above them on the food chain.”

    I think this explains where Dave is always coming from.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Gibberish as usual, Bruni. I don’t see the poor or the rich as problems. I see them as people. I don’t think in terms of groups. I try to look for answers to problems which will address the needs of all people regardless of race, religion, wealth or poverty.

    As I alluded to earlier with Cindy, policies which are designed to benefit everyone in society will inevitably benefit the rich as well as the poor and those of moderate means, but I’d rather have equitable policies which can benefit all than policies which single out one group for punishment and another for special privileges.

    And Cindy, as far as landowners say in government, Madison’s argument makes perfect sense. Those who contribute to government and who are more subject to the dictates of government ought to have more of a say in how that government operates. If you are poor and pay no taxes and own no property you have very little at risk when government makes decisions. Thus, you should have little say in government. But if you own property and have wealth and are likely to be the main target of taxation and government regulation, then you ought to have a voice in how that government sets policy.

    Dave

  • pablo

    A much more cogent and articulate article on this subject can be found here:

    Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty

    Interestingly this article is written by Kurt Nimmo who works for Alex Jones and is hosted on infowars.com. Note also that the author did not mention the ninth amendment as Nalle did, which is a red herring.

  • Brunelleschi

    Dave-

    Your posts and your defense above are contradictory, you just don’t realize it due to “I am right” syndrome.

    Nice speech though.

  • Clavos

    From Pablito’s paranoia link:

    Sadly, far too many Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to understanding their rights and the Constitution. As Gary Alder notes in his “15 Key Principles of the Founding Fathers,” the “9th and 10th Amendments are the keystones to preserving Freedom.”

    Hm…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Pablo, not only is the article you cite linked to in my article as an example of one of those who is overstating the extent of this movement, but as Clavos points out, he makes the exact same reference to the 9th amendment, based on a quote from Adler, rather than on a quote from Madison and one of the bills, as I do. So I guess “red herrings” are everywhere.

    And Bruni, my comment is on a different subject from the article. Reconciling them is going to be challenging, but feel free to fret about it until you go mad.

    Dave

  • pablo

    38 and 39

    Yes I goofed, jumped the gun as it were.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    That’s my man, Pablo. I wonder how many others in the BC community would openly admit to having made a mistake.

  • zingzing

    dave: “If you are poor and pay no taxes and own no property you have very little at risk when government makes decisions. Thus, you should have little say in government. But if you own property and have wealth and are likely to be the main target of taxation and government regulation, then you ought to have a voice in how that government sets policy.”

    ahh, you mean like how we used to treat slaves and women… righto.

    what you describe is just how it works already, really. and that’s how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. the rich set the policy, fucking over the poor and there ya go.

    lovely, isn’t it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    “If you are poor and pay no taxes and own no property you have very little at risk when government makes decisions. Thus, you should have little say in government. But if you own property and have wealth and are likely to be the main target of taxation and government regulation, then you ought to have a voice in how that government sets policy.”

    This brings us back to 1787. Which explains many people’s thinking.

  • Brunelleschi

    #43-

    No kidding. Dave is still writing 6th grade term papers, and the teacher and the rest of the class are laughing their asses off.

    That was just unfuckingbelievable.

    I really would pay money to see the GOP post that as policy!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I don’t think they’d dare to. Of course our good ole friend Rush would jump at the opportunity.

  • Brunelleschi

    If you could teach a parrot to say that, what would you call it?

    :)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I think our Founding Fathers – bless their soul – would turn in their grave. I sincerely believe they were allowing for openneess when they drafted the document. Little did they know that 250 years later they’d be held to the exact form of their words and meaning.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Roger, you can make up anything you like about the founding fathers. Lots of people are already engaged in that sort of historical revisionism. I’m sure you’ll enjoy being in the company of the “christian nation” theorists of the religious right.

    Fortunately the founding fathers left behind lots and lots of documentation beyond just the Constitution itself to tell us exactly what they were thinking at the time, and my interpretation, which Bruni would like to dismiss because he has no real response to it [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] is supported by their writings.

    You should read Madison’s account of the debates at the Constitutional Convention. It’s a revelation.

    To quote one of the delegates:

    “Ought not every man who pays a tax, (be able) to vote for the representative who is to levy and dispose of his money? Chall the wealthy merchants and manufacturers, who will bear a full share of the public burdens be not allowed a voice in the imposition of them — taxation and representation ought to go together.”

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Stand corrected, then, until further notice.

  • Cindy D

    what you describe is just how it works already, really. and that’s how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. the rich set the policy, fucking over the poor and there ya go.

    I though Dave was for freedom and liberty. Dave is for freedom and liberty for the rich. If you don’t own property you don’t count.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Or that the Constitutional Amendments we had had since – regarding universal suffrage and the like – were grossly misguided.

  • Mark Ed(en)

    We all own property these days – our labor…therefore the necessary inconvenience of universal suffrage.

  • Cindy D

    “Landholders ought to have a share in the government to support these invaluable interests and check the other many. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” -James Madison

    And check the other many. That is saying what you value Dave is more important than what another human being values. That’s not liberty Dave.

    If you don’t say all human beings all have a right to liberty. Then you can’t be for freedom.

  • Cindy D

    Some people don’t own the right kind of property, I guess, Mark.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Fortunately, we have effectively transcended the narrow interpretation and Dave’s longing for the good ole past is no longer advocated in the open (only in the secret corridors of power).

    However minimally, it is progress.

  • Brunelleschi

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] I may make fun of your arguments because I think they are primitive and poorly thought out, but I have not attacked you personally.

    As a representative of this site, you should have some dignity and stop arguing with people like that.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I though Dave was for freedom and liberty. Dave is for freedom and liberty for the rich. If you don’t own property you don’t count.

    No. Freedom and liberty for all means protecting the right to hold property.

    And check the other many. That is saying what you value Dave is more important than what another human being values.

    No. We all value the same basic things. But valuing them is meaningless without protecting the right to keep what you have and the right to legitimately obtain what you want.

    Fortunately, we have effectively transcended the narrow interpretation and Dave’s longing for the good ole past is no longer advocated in the open (only in the secret corridors of power).

    Hey, good paraphrase of Mussolini’s “We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty” speech.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    No. Freedom and liberty for all means protecting the right to hold property.

    Even if you are Palestinian?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I wasn’t criticizing your right to speech, Dave, only commenting that that these views (believed some as they still may be by some), are no longer expressed in public with much success.

    As to the comparison with Mussolini, what else is new. I’ve already been accused of Hitlerism by some, so I may as well wear the shoe if it fits.

  • bliffle

    Dave is a Royalist.

    He admires the ‘opulent’, and struggles to join them.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I didn’t know that Party still had a political standing.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Even if you are Palestinian?

    Didn’t we already have that discussion, Cindy? Of course Palestinians have a right to own property.

    I wasn’t criticizing your right to speech, Dave, only commenting that that these views (believed some as they still may be by some), are no longer expressed in public with much success.

    Then we’ve become a depressingly dishonest society.

    As to the comparison with Mussolini, what else is new. I’ve already been accused of Hitlerism by some, so I may as well wear the shoe if it fits.

    You’re not blogging properly unless someone is comparing you to Hitler.

    Dave is a Royalist.

    Your spellchecker seems to be off. That’s spelled Realist.

    Bruni, go reread #44.

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    Hmmm…let’s see… A state passing a resolution/bill asserting their sovereignty, or a Federal Government that ignores the stated will of the people to pass a trillion-dollar bailout of their closest donors?

    Do I trust a state legislature that at least lives in the same geographic region I do, and therefore on the same economy I do, or do I trust the selected contributors to a bloated, corrupt, and inefficient National Government, one where even my “Representatives” live more and have more invested in the area around D.C. than they do back here?

    gee, let me think about that…

    Thinking done. I’m in favour of the Sovereignty thing.

  • http://www.alien-earth.org lone_dragon

    I just read your writings tonight.

    Thank you for the information.

    Here are my tactics for breaking Big Brother, the NWO and the Police
    State in 2009.

    Each of the United States must immediately begin secession movements.

    Everyone with a landline (copper) should pick up their telephone and dial a number at a pre-designated date and time.

    On a pre-designated date and time, everyone should go to their bank and make a full cash withdrawal of their funds. The banks do not
    have enough paper money to cover their Virtual Wealth.

    Every resident of the US should write to get their personal records under the Privacy Act from the National Security Administration. When denied, each US resident should file a lawsuit in their Federal Court.

    Use of the US Dollar should cease immediately. Bartering should be used for all transactions.

    I have a lot more methods.

    Thomas Jefferson was right.

    This is the Lone Dragon signing off deep within Enemy territory.

    When a Scorpion is provoked stay clear.

    May the Force Be With You.

  • lominac

    In order to survive, groups of states or one mega-state could defend itself. Smaller states would seek to join with some larger groups. Virginia would be in a tug of war because of their potential plum asset – largest navy base in the world in Norfolk. Of course, it can all be divvied up. The old Soviet Union split up fairly amicably.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I’ve been off-line for a while and so I’m late to the party here….

    When I lived in the States, I was always for states’ rights, believing that 50 different routes to “truth, justice and the American way” were better than one.

    Those of you who have been following our friend Dave Nalle here carefully may note the possibilities he raises of the United States falling apart. This article is a variant of the theme. It should be borne in mind that he does entertain dark visions as well as allegedly reasonable ones, and these dark visions seem to influence his pessimistic outlook. In all of these articles, he is not a rabid enthusiast at all; he merely notes events and markets them in such a way as to make them convincing. He’s good at that – if you do not believe me, go look at his article on “the Other Iraq”, essentially a marketing piece on Kurdistan.

    While I agree with the general aim of the bills highlighted in this article, I do not foresee them getting anywhere – even if they pass. Once you federalize the State National Guard, you have stripped the governor of any sovereign authority he might be able to exercise, and I suspect that Obama, one who does not allow “moss to grow fat under a rolling stone”, will take just such actions in the states that pass these sovereignty bills….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    Good to see you back. By the way, interesting assessment of Dave. Perhaps I should take another look at his pieces and style. I hope you have something there.

    Personally, I’m rather skeptical of this sovereignty movement: it’s not exactly like the old Soviets or Yugoslavia with ethnic and cultural differences tearing us apart. Plus, we’re too federalized, too dependent on the central government for assistance (natural disasters), cataclysmic experience with a failed attempt (Civil War), worst possible time in which to do it (during this downturn) – so while decentralization is a very attractive idea, I don’t think it’s a feasible one. Not to mention that all the pull worldwide is in the opposite direction.

    Your thoughts?

    Roger

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Hi, Roger. Nice to be back!

    The United States was never as divided as the Soviet Union or as Yugoslavia was. It was never an empire of subjugated peoples conquered (not counting the American Indians), as was the Russian Empire, nor an unsuccessful attempt to unite Serbs (Orthodox Christians), Croats (Catholics) and Bosnian Moslems. So, the divisiveness in the States is not along ethnic lines with German Americans facing Scandahoovians along state borders with rifles cocked. It certainly is not like the Ukrainians firing over the Polish border from the Ukrainian SSR during the Communist era (one of our friends comes from Hrubieszow on the eastern Polish border).

    A killer recession CAN (but need not) inspire a NIMBY attitude where the states that are more prosperous want to keep out immigrants from those that are less prosperous. But, IMHO, in America, the issue is actually one of principle – and money.

    In the 1780’s, one of the reasons for states wanting to rewrite the treaty that had established the United States and the Continental Congress (the Articles of Confederation) was the crushing burden of debt the states had to carry. One of the provisions of the federal constitution of 1787 was to remove that burden of debt from the states.

    Today, the picture is reversed. The United States is bankrupt in all but name – but the constituent states are not. So, assertions of sovereignty are one way to unhook from a bankrupt entity. Usually, under all the flowery language about constitutional rights lurks a financial interest. And goodness knows, the states are far more sound financially than the federation they belong to.

    But Baritone makes a good point upthread. Smaller federal unions or empires (like Texas might be) would be swallowed up by foreign powers.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    I can see the possibility insofar as Texas, California, etc, are concerned. But if Confederacy was squashed

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    con’t: what chance is there for individual states? Do you know the Constitutional position on the matter?

    Roger

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I’m not sure that I understand your question, Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I mean, does the separatist movement requires the Constitutional Amendment?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You both seem to be suffering under the mistaken impression that these states are trying to secede. They aren’t. They are just asserting their rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which does not have anything to do with breaking up the union.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    I only asked the question. Forgive me, but I don’t read every article posted on BC. And if secession is not the issue, then what is? And what import can be attributed to these efforts?

  • STM

    Dave, if you’re around, I filed a news piece last night on the killer bushfires but sent it to politics as I could work out what category it fits. Cheers

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Dave,

    You … seem to be suffering under the mistaken impression that these states are trying to secede. They aren’t. They are just asserting their rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which does not have anything to do with breaking up the union.

    Dave, I understand this very well. I did read the article rather thoroughly (one of the few that got my interest), and drew my conclusions accordingly. This article is a variant of the idea that the American federation will fall apart for one reason or another, which you presented as an analysis by a Russian academician. I was rather clear in that to Roger in my initial analysis of your article, though he seemed to have missed that point. In both cases, you merely noted events and marketed them in such a way as to make them convincing while in each case demurring as to whether they would actually occur.

    Capisce?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I see now, Ruvy, what you mean by marketing. If that’s what Dave is in fact doing, it’d say it’s a very clever strategy. And if that’s the case, I wouldn’t be expecting a straightforward response.
    He’s got more intelligence than I gave him credit for. A real Machiavelli.

  • pablo

    Yes Dave is a Machiavelli, and is on the dark side, even though he will give occasional lip service to liberty and freedom, similarly to how Bush Jr. loved to use those words. He is part and parcel of the status quo which is why he wants to be in the CFR so much, and often uses their books to advertise on this site. I think he would do well their and I hope that someone in the CFR sponsors him soon.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    You mean that we’d be free of him or that finally the cat will be out of the bag?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger, don’t knock Machiavelli. He was a real Italian patriot who sought only the best for his homeland. If Dave is a real Machiavelli, he too is a patriot.

    I don’t foresee the CFR funding Dave anytime soon. Until my ticket comes in and I can afford to sit on my ass and edit the politics section of BC for nothing, we’ll be stuck with him.

    Paul is nursing a personal grudge against Dave. The mere fact that Dave appears to think I’m insane for believing in G-d and the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible and would rather ignore me if he felt he could is not sufficient reason for me to nurse a grudge against him. I’d rather nurse a good glass of wine. It’s tastier than a grudge….

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Indeed, Ruvy. I’m not sure what patriotism meant back then when there was no Italy, but Machiavelli certainly had very strong notions of good government.

    The term ‘Machiavellian’ arose from his best-known work, The Prince, in which he argued that an absolute monarch must be manipulative in order to survive and rule effectively; but he also wrote eloquently and perceptively on republican government.

    If patriotism means a passion for good stable government, in whatever form it happens to come, then Machiavelli certainly was a patriot. His foreword to The Prince, dedicating the book to Lorenzo de Medici – whose patronage Machiavelli desperately needed but who certainly did not espouse his idea of good governance – is a masterpiece of sarcasm.

    I saw an interesting TV show the other day about Israeli wines. I’ve never tried any – I don’t recall ever seeing any for sale over here – but it seems that today’s offerings are far superior to the wine described in the Bible, which according to paleoenologists was likely to have been a sort of syrupy, sugary, sickly goop.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy: Those of you who have been following our friend Dave Nalle here carefully may note the possibilities he raises of the United States falling apart.

    Raising a topic for discussion does not mean endorsing it. It’s called reporting, Ruvy. Plus this article is NOT about secession, but rather asserting states rights under the constitution and within the union.

    Roger: I only asked the question. Forgive me, but I don’t read every article posted on BC. And if secession is not the issue, then what is? And what import can be attributed to these efforts?

    Roger, if you didn’t read the article, why are you commenting on it and asking questions which the article answers. Maybe reading the article would be more productive.

    Stan: Dave, if you’re around, I filed a news piece last night on the killer bushfires but sent it to politics as I could work out what category it fits. Cheers

    Working on it. I’ve got an article waiting to be published too, and two more ready to be submitted as well.
    Ruvy: This article is a variant of the idea that the American federation will fall apart for one reason or another, which you presented as an analysis by a Russian academician.

    No, it really isn’t. IMO the return of some authority to the states is the best way to preserve the union by minimizing the harm which the out of control federal government can do.

    Roger: He’s got more intelligence than I gave him credit for. A real Machiavelli.

    Ah, if only I were actually being that devious. But no, it’s pretty straightforward.

    Roger: You mean that we’d be free of him or that finally the cat will be out of the bag?

    I think that Pablo was expressing a sincere desire that the CFR or one of its associated think tanks should give me a big fat grant or fellowship. Sounds good to me.

    Ruvy: The mere fact that Dave appears to think I’m insane for believing in G-d and the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible and would rather ignore me if he felt he could is not sufficient reason for me to nurse a grudge against him.

    Lots of people hold irrational beliefs in one area and can still perform well in other areas, Ruvy. Outside of your one area of intense delusion I have great respect for your insights.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    Just a little sense of humor here and there. Personally, I think you ought to get a grant or something – especially if your editing duties on BC bring no income whatever. But still, it looks to my like you’re protesting too much. I, too, envisage a breakup of some kind – not a happy thought. It’s just that you’ve got to go where the logic leads you.

    Ruvvy,

    I feel the same about grudges. Those who are deserving of communication will remain so; others you’ve just got to eliminate as nut cases. It’s a simple world, really. And no, I wasn’t knocking Machiavelli. He was a statesman.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    I read it, but you do not draw any conclusions, offer opinions, speculate on the future or the significance. So perhaps Ruvy was right in his assessment that you are marketing the idea or at least putting out the feelers.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I probably should have tagged this as a news article. That’s more or less how I wrote it. The idea was to just make people aware of the issue and see what the thought.

    As editor here part of my role is to write newsy articles to generate interest in issues and inspire discussion.

    For the record, there’s a LOT of interest in this issue. On my personal blog this article has attracted 3000 hits in a couple of days.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I just checked it. Some of the comments there are higher caliber than what you find here. Your audience seems highly motivated. Good for you. And a good looking website, too.

    Roger

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Thanks, Roger. What I’ve attracted there is a much more sympathetic audience to the idea just by the nature of being well tied in to the libertarian community.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    What I wonder, you were already part of the establishment, so to speak. Couldn’t you continue by way of career? It’d seem to me it would be harder to start anew, especially if you’ve lost your connections. Weren’t you tempted?

    Roger

  • pablo

    Wow 300 hits on your blog Nalle! Thats fuckin great dude. How many are you getting currently on idiotwars? hehehe

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What I wonder, you were already part of the establishment, so to speak. Couldn’t you continue by way of career? It’d seem to me it would be harder to start anew, especially if you’ve lost your connections. Weren’t you tempted?

    Well, all my past political experience came right after getting out of college and I was really not ready to work in DC in the kinds of jobs I could get then. So I took 20 years off in academis and have since worked for myself. Now I’m building connections within the GOP where there’s a lot more potential and a growing interest in reform.

    Ah, Pablo. So nice that you care about IdiotWars.com – after all, it’s dedicated to you and your friends. And it’s been building a following. This week it’s up to about 50 hits a day, which is a decent start.

    Dave

  • Thomas

    #42

    What Dave was trying to convey is that when you don’t pay taxes then you don’t mind voting for a tax increase. All people are selfish and will do what’s in their best interest first; Poor and Rich. If the poor realizes that all they have to do is vote in a man in order to become rich or get stuff for free then our nation becomes a tyranny of the majority or as our founding fathers used to call it a “Democracy”. No taxation without representation and no representation without taxation.
    On a side note Hong Kong employs this ideal; so it’s no wonder why they have one of the best economies in the world.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ah, the simplistic approach. The poor want to “get stuff for free.”

    If you guys are so fucking afraid of “democracy” in action as a representation of your people, why do you insist on spreading it like manure over the rest of the world? Oh right, I forgot. Gotta ensure that unfettered access to rape other countries of their resources, cultures, and wealth.

    Dang, I guess you really have it all figured out.

  • Jordan Richardson

    What really gets me about people of your mindset, Thomas, is that your entire way of life relies on villainizing The Other so that you don’t have to feel quite as guilty for fleecing the population with your greed.

    The poor have to become lazy, environmental concerns have to become the property of special interest groups trying to part your “hard earned money” from your wallet, spending on education becomes all about teaching kids to be gay, other cultures and countries become terrorists, etc. This construct of heroes and villains is essential to the American Way of Life because somebody’s gotta sell the story to people who aren’t all that rich.

    Republicans and right-wingers know that their story isn’t good enough to gain the support of all of the people or even a majority of them, so they have to hijack moral concerns and “national security issues” in order to precipitate public support to continue to prop up their wealth and way of life. That’s why right-wing rule in America always requires some sort of threat, either to morality (gay marriage, abortion) or to national security (terrorism, Muslims).

    And while both political parties are guilty as sin in terms of continuing the process of unchecked wealth and unchecked spending to ensure that the rich continue to have their quality of life, nobody spreads the butter on the toast quite like the Republicans.

    In respect to this, I have a challenge to the rich in America. Learn to say “when.” Learn to say “enough.” Learn that billions of dollars in profits is a good amount of money and that next year it doesn’t need to be doubled at the expense of Third World water supplies or charging people in Africa to use their own wells. Learn to say “gosh, $4 million for one year is really a good amount of money and I’m fucking happy with that. Maybe I don’t need that extra house.”

    The poor aren’t greedy. They just want to fucking eat. Why is that such a threat?

  • pablo

    Dave I can make any website and get 50 hits a day in ummm about 24 hours no charge for the traffic either ala payper click. Seeing that you now some 6 months later are getting half that, not to mention that a great deal of those hits are coming from being spidered by various search engines, I am not impressed. :)

    However I am flattered that you have dedicated such an informative site to “me and friends”, as it reflects much more accurately on you, my good buddy, than I. Congrats

    Oh and thanks for answering my question 10 weeks after I first posed it to you.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Wew Pablo, go for it. Let us know when you launch your site. I’m sure it will be the 8th wonder of the world.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    #92,#93

    If you don’t understand what Jordan said. Then you are just refusing to look. And as the saying goes, “If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention.”

    Those two posts are the best most accurate assessments I’ve seen here.

    (and Roger, that anger Jordan expresses is what the Zapatistas might call dignified rage …they just finished this event: The First World Festival of Digna Rabia. That anger should be validated. It’s people who have been made able to discuss atrocities as if they are merely “ideas”, and with no emotion, that help keep the whole thing working, I think. That is often encouraged by people on the left–academic, cool analysis.)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, the simplistic approach. The poor want to “get stuff for free.”

    Jordan. Everyone wants to get stuff for free. I do, you do. It’s human nature.

    If you guys are so fucking afraid of “democracy” in action as a representation of your people, why do you insist on spreading it like manure over the rest of the world?

    Have you looked at the governmental structure in Iraq. It’s a far cry from direct democracy. It’s a much more appropriate and potentially enduring system.

    Oh right, I forgot. Gotta ensure that unfettered access to rape other countries of their resources, cultures, and wealth.

    This is such tired bullshit. Can you not think for yourself or are you only able to repeat the same old lame and bigoted assertions?

    What really gets me about people of your mindset, Thomas,

    What really irks me is the way that you lump people into groups rather than considering them as individuals on the merit of their own ideas and beliefs.

    The poor have to become lazy, environmental concerns have to become the property of special interest groups trying to part your “hard earned money” from your wallet, spending on education becomes all about teaching kids to be gay, other cultures and countries become terrorists, etc. This construct of heroes and villains is essential to the American Way of Life because somebody’s gotta sell the story to people who aren’t all that rich.

    You know, Thomas didn’t post about any of this stuff. You’re just reading your prejudices onto him with no real basis in anything he wrote. You have this image of the “evil conservative” in your head which keeps you from engaging others on a real, human basis.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    3000, Pablo.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Jordan, #93

    “In respect to this, I have a challenge to the rich in America. Learn to say “when.” Learn to say “enough.” Learn that billions of dollars in profits is a good amount of money and that next year it doesn’t need to be doubled at the expense of Third World water supplies or charging people in Africa to use their own wells. Learn to say “gosh, $4 million for one year is really a good amount of money and I’m fucking happy with that. Maybe I don’t need that extra house.”

    It will never happen, Jordan. Preoccupation with money and power is a disease. Sort of like annal fixation. These people have never grown up to the level of adulthood. Material possessions and wealth is their god. They’re all empty inside, so they just keep on doing the only thing they know. That’s how they justify their miserable existence.

    (There are notable exception -I had better say in the interest of fairness.)

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    “Jordan. Everyone wants to get stuff for free. I do, you do. It’s human nature.”

    A heck of a conception of the poor. They’re just lazy, don’t want to work – real scum. But if that’s the preconception that governs one’s political thinking and ideology – concerning what, would I be wrong to say “at least fifty percent of the Americans” and that number is growing – is it any wonder why Mr. Nally and others like him espouse the kind of views they do?

    I would reexamine the fundamentals, Dave. They’re always the key to a person’s views in the so-called “higher sphere” – be it political science, morality, you name it. It doesn’t get any more basic than that.

    Roger

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    That’s not a conception of the poor, it’s a universal of human nature. Ask any spammer.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    I disagree with that. It may be a conception of human nature which goes with certain conceptual systems, which in turn spur a family of related views and theories on any subject concerning “human affairs.” I wasn’t born and raised here, and I’ve never been beholden to money, nor preoccupied with it. Granted, it was a different culture and education. But exceptions do not prove the rule here, especially when a fundamental position such as this is liable (or at least can be suspected) of being self-serving – in so far that it enables one to hold on to a view of the world that one is comfortable with and would not want to discard.

    To say the least, there is room here for significant disagreement in the area of metaphysics.

    Roger

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    If you have all the money you could want and have never needed money then presumably you haven’t developed as much of an awareness of how necessary it is. But if you were suddenly poor your attitude would likely change.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    There’s an interesting development related to this story here in Texas.

    It seems that our governor and state government are looking into the legalities of the option of rejecting all federal funds from the stimulus package so that they won’t have to comply with any of the requirements and unfunded mandates which come with them.

    I think that says a lot about this situation.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Dave,

    I am aware how necessary it is – to a point – and how convenient. When I had my own sub-chapter S, I was grossing close to $400,000 a year and netting over $150,000 – so I do not, believe me, about lifestyle, etc. But I realize I never needed that much and could well be equally comfortable with less. Opulence and success are addictive, but it’s something I can well do without – and have. My other pursuits – writing, intellectual development, simple pleasures like getting together with friends, playing chess, reading – they all have replaced (and with compound interest) my previous, more or less luxurious lifestyle.

    Which doesn’t mean I don’t miss it sometimes.

    Roger

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Good for Texas if it can get away with it. But will it mean setback in terms of Civil Rights?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Why would it have anything to do with Civil Rights, Roger?

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Just asking what federal mandates would Texans not care for.

  • Hammer

    I would like to hear from others who would be interested in starting a movement to form a union of North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming and secede from the union.

    I don’t think any other country would try to take over our union except maybe Canada and I’m sure we could hold them off.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I think the current objections are specifically to unfunded mandates in the stimulus bill which will require greater funding in areas of education, infrastructure and healthcare which many Texans feel are already adequately provided for.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    California could also benefit – but their education mandates are not federally-dictated but originate from their own state legislatures which are under the grip of the teacher’s union. It approaches the level of socialization (in the area of education) comparable to the kind existing in the Soviet Union and the satellites. It’s beyond me that the public is buying it.

  • pablo

    “The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power.”

    This is hardly an accurate statement and a very over generalized one as well. Some of the founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power, others did not. However when all was said and done and the Constitution ratified the tenth amendment made it very clear that those powers not given the federal government were left to the states or to the people. Unfortunately due to misrepresentation of the public welfare clause (meaning to some that under that clause the federal government has unlimited powers), the federal government’s witholding of funds unless states agree to certain things, and such things as Bush’s executive order (illegal) making the National Guard of the states subservient to the federal government it is a sad day for local control of government by the people, for the people, and of the people.

  • Ma(rk Ede)n

    Hey! An area of factual agreement. The FDR administration’s abuse of the public welfare clause in it’s effort to pay farmers not to farm was a travesty.

  • Tampa, Florida

    States asserting their right is I think a good thing. For far to long the government has been spying on us taking away my state rights of course I believe succession is wrong but flexing your right or might is not. we do live in a different year but history can repeat it self, I’m not saying the crown is coming back for us but when size and lack of representation take effect well even Rome had to split it self in two because it had grown to big for their government to control. plus a bigger government will only make it harder to change thing for the better ( better as we see it). to many people believe that the feds should fix everything that is wrong in your state, education in your state, health care in your state, pollution in your state when that is not the feds job, defense and trade is their job. and the day the states become irrelevant is the day the constitution has been destroyed and the union has fallen, because with out the states there is no Union.

  • paul c graham
  • thaDeetz

    1. The Declaration of Independence IS codified law of the USA. It’s preeminence as a Free People’s final bulwark, requires the Republic’s citizenry to cast off such despotic, tyrannical abuses of state, if need be. The 2nd Amendment secures the means to exercise that God-given right, lo duty. Various elements (1st, 4th, 9th, 10th) of the Bill of Rights illuminates less drastic measures to secure such inalienable rights.

    2. At all societal levels, creeping socialism has infected this country for over 100 years. Socialism/communism CANNOT exist in tandem with a Constitutional Republic.

    3. The U.S. marxist time is nigh. Search Cloward-Piven Strategy. The current state of economic crisis was manufactured in order to bring this to pass. Why do liberal policies never work?!? These policies are not designed to work, only fail. This is why Porkulus will not work. It will only subvert rights further.

    4. All branches of military take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the president, not the congress, nor the federal bureaucracy. It is their right and duty to ignore unconstitutional orders.

    Liberty can be such an ugly, yet rewarding, pursuit.

  • Mark

    Some postings near the top of the thread seemed to convey the notion that the U. S. Constitution is antiquated and should therefore be ignored. Quite a common viewpoint these days, particularly within all three branches of the Federal Government.

    The Constitution is nowadays comparable to the British Crown. Theoretically all-powerful, but in reality the monarch is trotted out and curtsied to at the opening of Parliament, then otherwise ignored in matters of substance. We may still follow the Ps and Qs of the details, but the meat and potatoes of the federal system devised by the Founders has been quashed by an ever more powerful imperial government.

    There have been bills introduced at the beginning of each Congress for the last decade or so that would require all legislation brought before the Congress to cite the specific Constitutional authorization for the purpose and contents of each new bill. Not surprisingly, this effort has never gained any traction. Those in control are not amused by any such check on their power and arrogance.

    What the Founding Fathers envisioned as a useful tool for the common prosperity and security of the states has morphed from the organ grinder’s monkey to an 800-pound gorilla that jerks the states around at will. The Federal government forgets that it was created by the states and that it (theoretically) exercises only delegated powers. The resolutions introduced in the various state legislatures are merely attempts to point out that fact and that Congress has greatly exceeded its authority in many areas. The states are not appendages of the Federal government and may not be coerced or dictated to.

    Mark

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    BTW, I’ve posted a new article updating this issue.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    I’m tired of being the only voice in the wilderness. Are there living souls out there?

    Speak out or hold your piece.

  • leighann

    I grew up with nothing. My mom worked in tobacco fields, factories and picked berries to sell to keep a roof over our heads. I have been poor all of my life and just now have a job where I make over 30,000 a year (but not much more). I still live in a mobile home and drive a 6 year old cavalier with a cracked windshield to work everyday. I struggle to pay daycare to put my son on the bus in the mornings. Having said all of that, I will have to say that I agree with Dave. I know a lot of hard working poor people who stay well informed of the things going on in our country but I also know many who do not. They vote a certain way becuase that is how thier fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers voted. I know MANY who are just plain lazy and do just what they can get for free. They have gotten used to that kind of life and they think that the people who actually get out and work for a living owe them something because they are poor.

    There are many who are poor becuase of no fault of thier own but there are many who are poor becuase they have learned to be helpless. Many of these kind of poor people have no idea of what is going on in the government. You can talk to them for about 5 minutes and ascertain that quickly. They are going off of rumors that they have heard.

    My brother and I are a good example. I work everyday and I work hard becuase I want to be a contributer and I want better for my family. My brother does whatever he can to get out of work. He takes whatever free handouts he can get and only works when he absolutely has to. I doubt he could tell you who ran against Obama in the last presidential election, he has no interest in it becuase he has no steak in it(I know I sound hard on him but do love him).

    I say that if you are hungry and need money then get a damn job and stop complaining about your oppression until you decide to at least try to do something about it yourself. Rich people- stop thinking you know how we feel and you are doing us a favor by giving us handouts! That is exactly what is causing us to stay poor, my brother is a good example. Remember, he works when he has to.

    Yes, if you pay taxes and contribute to this economy or are trying to do something to contribute to this economy then you do have more of a steak in it than others, especially those who dont want to work and are voting for the one who gives the most handouts.

    Let me clarify agian, not all the poor are like that, many are hard workers who are trying to just get by like single mothers who do not work becuase the cost of childcare is more than what they would make at a job. That being said, I would venture to say just from my own experiences that just as many are just looking for what they can get for free. Stop enabling them!

    Find a way to help those who are really needy, who are trying to do better. You want to give someting then give money for decent childcare to people who HAVE a job or are in college. Help them help themselves, don’t just give to them. Dont just take it away when they finally start to get on thier own two feet, just to help them up so you can knock them back down, give them a little while to learn to manage it. Only help people who are working, REALLY looking for employment, or getting a higher education.

    When you automatically start accusing someone of saying the poor are lazy becuase they have the audacity to say that people who actully pay taxes should have more rights then it makes me think you have never actually been here or you would know that there are a lot of poor who are lazy. That is just real.

    The good thing about America is that if you try and you are willing to do what it takes you do have the ability to get out, just as I have a little. What I make may sound like a little to some of you but to many of my family, I make really good money. I could have been out more but am not because of my OWN bad choices. There were no rich people oppressing me. So as for the comment about waving a carrot in front of our noises, all I can say is that the American Dream is still a possibility depending on your personal determination, there is still hope. Although, I fear with the current administration, that hope will be taken from all of us soon.

  • leighann

    Sorry, as you can see, I am not the best writer just happened to stumble upon this page and had to comment.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    No need to apologize, Leighann. Your’e being very frank and that’s what matters. Consider yourself fairly lucky, though, you still have that job. Given massive layoffs, it’s not too bad considering. You can scratch a living at least.

    You’re also right that we have created a large underclass that is dependent on government assistance. Plenty of causes. So there are all kinds of poor, those you mention and the working poor. I don’t know about the American Dream, however. It’s mostly a matter of perception.

    When I came to this country in 1961, hope was in the air and it seemed only the sky was the limit. You must admit it is rather difficult to hold on to such a rosy attitude today. Perhaps some have enjoyed the period of prosperity (more than others), which makes it so difficult for them to let go, so it’s all relative I guess. But it’s no longer the land of opportunity like it used to be – better than other countries – but we’re beginning to experience hardship as individuals and a nation. Not the first time, of course, but for the present generation – and I’m speaking overall – a brand-new experience.

  • Sprinkman

    This is truly a diligent government movement to put together or build a One World Government. The president of today along with the presidents of past are working in concert. The large corporations, media, entrenched politicians, the members of tri-lateral commission (the same)are working toward the same goal. We, the people, are not on the same page. When the people as a whole adopt a frame of mind or existance of dependency on our government we will be easy converts to one world socialism or order. Our freedoms will be freedoms of the past.—BEWARE—

  • Glenn Contrarian

    leighann –

    I hope you stick around – it’s good to see someone who is honest, passionate, and forthright.

    That said, Google ‘Citizens Councils’ and ‘Eastland’. You see, those Citizens Councils were what the racist good ol’ boy network down South used to keep black-owned businesses from succeeding…and when very few blacks could succeed, well, gee whiz – look at all those lazy blacks!

    Yes, it WAS that way because that’s where I grew up (and I’m white, btw). I posted this to let you know that there are those in America who DO strive to “keep the [whichever group] down”.

    So please do not be quick to judge others. Many times the tough love you describe IS what is needed. Many other times, all that is needed is a leg up, or a little help to get from here to there. Like Obama, my single mother and I needed food stamps once…and like Obama, we’ve gone further than anyone else in my family.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Nice of you to encourage him, Glenn. We need more people like that who shoot from the hip and speak their mind.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    When a serious issue like this starts to attract people like Sprinkman then it runs the risk of being marginalized by association with their other crazy beliefs.

    This is not about fighting the New World Order or the Jewish bankers or the CFR. It’s just about keeping the feds from taking autonomy away from state governments.

    Dave

  • Mike

    Ultimately all politics is local.

    We have to fight the propaganda such as “think globally, act locally.” This is the mental underpinning of the Agenda 21 program which would deny individual property owners the right to use THEIR property as they see fit because some bureaucrat “has to save the earth.”

  • http://www.fontcraft.com Dave Nalle

    Acting locally no longer works when you have things like the Clyburn amendment rendering local government impotent against federal dictats.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    “It’s just about keeping the feds from taking autonomy away from state governments.”

    Now, that’s a clear statement.

  • Dennis

    I think Dave needs to take another look at the texts of some of these sovereignty bills before he declares that they are being misread by “extremists”. Montana’s in particular sounds very much like a chip has been placed on a shoulder, and a dare to knock it off has been uttered.

    Good for them. It’s about time.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    So you’re saying the movement is for real, Dennis?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dennis, as I have pointed out in all of the articles I’ve written on this subject there are basically two different models for these bills. One is the Oklahoma model which is very straightforward and non-confrontational. Then there is the New Hampshire model, which is much more radical and offers a real challenge to federal authority. Only a small number of states have followed the New Hampshire model and I have a feeling most of those will not pass. The Oklahoma model is more common and much more likely to pass in most cases.

    Dave

  • http://www.pal2pal.com Sara

    I have been struggling with this subject for awhile now and found this site as part of my research on the subject.

    You say that so far this is something being talked about but not acted upon by the states, but this seems in direct contravention of another article that reads:

    “Today, the number of states claiming state sovereignty, some outlining specific federal actions that have far more to do with usurping the US Constitution than upholding it, has grown to at least thirty two… the magic number is 34…. ”

    It then goes on to list the various states. For instance, California is listed as: “1994: California – 10th Amendment.”

    “BILL NUMBER: SJR 44 CHAPTERED 08/29/94
    BILL TEXT

    RESOLUTION CHAPTER 93
    FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE AUGUST 29, 1994
    ADOPTED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 23, 1994
    ADOPTED IN SENATE AUGUST 15, 1994
    AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 11, 1994
    AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 1994

    or New Hampshire listed as: “2009: New Hampshire – 9th Amendment, 10th Amendment, Federal Reserve, Taxes, Martial Law, 2nd Amendment, Draft/War, Patriot Act, Labor Camps, 1st Amendment.”

    Article URL with links to each state’s bills or resolutions.

    As one who believes the Federal government should limit itself to defense, and stay out of the cultural issues, I cannot agree with Baritone’s comments. But I struggle with this issue mainly because I do not have a good handle on the big picture ramifications of the sovereignty movement. It seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of Constitutional principles, but obviously there is is a major disconnect in this country. I already live in a nannystate and see the destruction it has wrought, yet there seems to be a large voting segment who wants, expects, the Federal government to be their Mommy, Daddy and Big Brother and does not believe in the ultimate right of the individual. The right to pursue happiness is not a guarantee of the right to have happiness. It gives us just as much right to fail as it does to succeed, but nowadays, failure can not be tolerated and therefore is either rewarded so someone doesn’t “feel” bad, or it is criminalized, because someone has to pay for my failure, or so it seems.

  • Turnip

    Last year’s total debt per person was $186,717 (up $11,563 over prior year’s $175,154); this compares to $29,722 in 1957 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars.

    Is this any indication of what happens when power is so far removed from the people and concentrated in the Federal District? DC is a 10 square mile free fraud zone where our futures and livelihoods are bought, sold and indentured daily. Bring some of that corruption to the states where we can more easily tar and feather the offenders.

  • Brandon

    We need to make Debt Free Notes. Buy off the Government bonds to pay off dept to put this debt free notes in the bank’s reserves so that way it can fill and get rid of fractional reserves. abolish the acts and amendments that give central banks the power to regulate money. move the monetary system back to the treasury. get rid of national debt.

  • Dave

    One could only wish Canada had become a republic instead of a Dominion. In fact we live under a two party federal system, the NDP will NEVER form a federal government, with an unelected senate that quashes anything that isn’t partisan to their party.

    We have gutless premiers that abdicate any provincial powers, and they have plenty, if it is politicaly expedient to do so. The exception being Quebec and they are endlessly villafied in the media for seeking only the powers every province holds under the constitution. Canadians should pay attention to the situation developing down south. By the way I am not French, I am a 4th generation Albertan.

  • Sean OLeary

    State sovereignty is what humanity is about. The entire libertarian and “personal sovereignty” movements are imperialist bunkum run by the global financial interests in their ongoing war against the Westphalian system of sovereign nation states. Ron Paul? The man’s a free market extremist. Sure, the Federal Reserve is anti-constitutional and we should get rid of it, but the Federal Reserve is not a government body, it’s run by private bankers. A national government that is sovereign, which means independent of globalist financier interests, is the best way to defend, support and uphold the principle of the General Welfare which means “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” each every individual.

  • docdave

    This James Madison quote says it all with regard to states rights versus Federal rights.

    “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.

    The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”