Well, They’ve Always Said the South Will Rise Again!

The South Shall Rise Again!

Seems the folks at the White House have promised to react somehow if enough voters submit their petitions for their state to secede from the union now His Highness has been reelected. Apparently a bit of hubris since now the petitions are pouring in big time. Big enough numbers in fact, that folks have stopped laughing and started to investigate the situation. Petition to Leave the Union will explain for you.

Scalia vs. Thomas Jefferson provides the current legalities of the proposed procedure. Supreme Justice Scalia (Conservative side) says that all those dead guys from the Civil War are the final word on secession; you can’t go there from here. Founder Thomas Jefferson (and the Declaration of Independence) however, don’t quite match that. They say citizens have an unalienable right to dispose of tyrannical government.

The legal niceties usually aren’t deciding in these cases, seems to me; it’s usually whoever ends standing among the piles of dead people. Ask Syria’s Assad…

Texican Governor Perry was evidently short of headlines; he spoke up on this: Texas should not leave the Union; the very idea is ridiculous. Though he hastened to add that he understood peoples’ feelings on the matter. He feels their pain, I guess but is reluctant to  detach from the Federal teat.

Another group has requested petitions to deprive all those signing the secession petitions of their U.S. citizenship, which seems to carry humor into farce but does serve to make a point.

Seriously, if as the Bill of Rights provides, sovereignty resides in the states but for that portion specifically handed over to the Feds, (10th Amendment) you’d think there is a least a starting place for secession arguments. Dunno, I’m too innocent to be a lawyer. And we’ve transmogrified our Constitution into a gaggle of 9 black robes long since anyway.

Some very serious writers are watching the ongoing disintegration of societal bonds around the world as well as here and predicting we’re on the way toward a bunch of smaller political actors, the opposite of what the ‘World Government’ folks are selling. Dunno that, either but here’s what seems to me a pretty good question:

For the long term, how do you accommodate into a single society folks who hold human life as a God-given gift we have no right to jeopardize with folks who demand convenience abortion? Another thing I dunno… But I’ll bet life for the next couple of generations will be anything but boring!

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Abortion, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Elections, States and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Well, They’ve Always Said the South Will Rise Again!

  1. flyoverhere says:

    I dunno either cause I woulda bet that people would never cave in to the idea of global warming (or whatever they decide to call it next), to except smoking bans, food bans, or believe that whole milk and eggs and coffee will kill you. Did you know that every dead person that ever ate a carrot or brussel sprouts died anyway? How do you convince people to buy light bulbs with mercury in them and that require a hazmat team to clean up if you break one but scream about mercury in everything else? I really have decided I dunno anything….

  2. --Rick says:

    The article above begins well, but fades rather quickly fusing a partial philosophy with the rantings of whiny, recalcitrant and lazy children disguised as thinkers and persons of rational thought.

    The remainder of the section of the Declaration to which you refer in the main article is important to consider as well. Here is all but the last sentence or two:

    “–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

    Jefferson was correct in that it is the nature of people to submit to suffering while the suffering is tolerable. His understanding of human nature and his anticipation of their innate temperament in reaction to objectionable conditions, among other special qualities, made him unique as an intellectual leader. There is a quote that was circulating around from a father in Libya who lost his son to a rocket attack while being bathed: “We suffered under Qaddafi and we suffered greatly, but we were alive. Now, we suffer even more and all around us is death.”

    Jefferson anticipated that sentiment as well when he spoke not changing government “for light and transient causes”. To dismiss a government as powerful as the federal government of the United States will require another civil war and the suffering of such an action if resorted to as part and parcel of a secession movement will grow to a level beyond the comprehension of those who’ve never experienced war – let alone another war with brother against other. The notion of secession at this point in time and at this level of discomfort is absolutely absurd. Those leading this movement would be better served presenting their political and philosophic arguments to the people of their states or regions to demonstrate the folly of the current administration and work to change both in the 2014 Congressional races. That is the next logical step; not secession. Only a child runs away after experiencing a little perceived unjust justice. Are we children of the world, or are we of the stock of the rugged individualist Americans who built this nation?

    For those who are talking secession, encouraging it, or considering joining such a movement, I offer this: Grow up or run away beyond our borders because we have enough extremism to deal with already…just pack up and go find a place like Greece where whiners and cry babies are in high demand.

    If you don’t like the Constitution as it is, work to Amendment. In my mind, the best Amendment would be one that nullifies all of the Amendments created since the document was originally signed. Most are expressions of a desire to avoid the hard work of persuasion by principle in favor of a short cut to remedy a temporary problem without regard for the unintended consequences brought by such changes. But, that’s just my view. I am far from being too innocent to study or practice law, but I do lack both the legal education and the desire to advocate on behalf of a lie rather than actual justice.

    Thanks for listening.

    Your friendly neighborhood curmudgeon,


  3. --Rick says:

    As to the long term, we need to decide if America is a secular government guiding our Republic based upon law, fact and reason, or if it is going to be a government that is willing to join so closely with religion that it seeks to establish a modern day version of Christendom? If it is the latter, then how do we justify denying Muslims an equal share of government power in the form of a Caliphate considering the principle that the government shall not favor or sponsor one religion over another? How does one share power when the interests of the people are being pulled in three diametrically opposed directions all at once?

    The notion is absurd and the obvious answer is that for people to live as free individuals endowed by their creator, the laws of nature or Nature’s God; they must live under a secular Republic where the rule of law and respect for the individual natural rights afforded all humans by birth can be freely exercised and individual lives freely lived so long as they respect the same rights endowed by all others.

    Anyway, that’s this layman’s worldview, and like John Paul Jones, I’ve just begun to fight for my rational self-interests and my chosen path for the pursuit of happiness. Cheers!

    • jackcurtis says:

      Given the level of significant government action that isn’t permitted in the Constitution or as with the attacks on churches, directly violates it, it seems reasonable to wonder how much Constitution is left, seems to me. Can that be reversed? Dunno.

      On religion, John Adams said our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people and would not work for any other. I suspect he was correct in that. And the founding was of a specifically Christian, though non-sectarian, country from all the Founders’ writings and of course, reinforced by the Declaration, though non-specifically as to Christianity.

      Maybe you can make a civilized country without our churches, depending upon your definition of civilization, I guess…but I suspect it will resemble China more than the U.S. of yore. Without the churches, after all, morality ends as whatever the government says…

  4. --Rick says:

    In my view, religion is little more than a philosophy on how to live, albeit a pragmatic worldview that is an amalgam of reason and mysticism and often at odds with itself. Man by nature is a hypocritical animal in that more often than not he fails to practice what he preaches. He is not dissuaded from such habits by the promise of forgiveness granted merely for the asking as opposed to the reality that for every action their is a consequence (good or bad) that one will have to own and perhaps pay for.

    John Adams had his view of America and his particular view of what is and is not moral. For instance, I find forced redistribution of my private property for purposes other than the support of the basic functions of government immoral. Those who would advocate for such an abusive exercise of power by the government to improve the lot of the least industrious among us by taking from the most industrious, productive and creative among us is more immoral and less civil in my view, than a person who lives an honorable life by defending the rights of others and moving forward building an existence based upon self-reliance and rational self-interest.

    What do you suppose John Adams would think if Muslims became the majority religion in America and moved to incorporate religion into constitutional law, or to replace the constitution altogether with the laws of Sharia? It is easy to support incorporating one’s faith into what should be objective [as opposed to subjective] law when one’s faith is the majority sharing power with government forces that are used to limit individual practices or rights. But, when one is not in the majority religion, but must abide by a law based upon beliefs that are contradictory to reason and objective reality – that same shoe fits with a greater difference and level of comfort.

    As to China, while it is still repressive, it is moving to open itself up and allow greater individual freedom for creativity and increased productivity as we in he United States are constantly fighting to hang on to the freedoms that remain since the movement toward big brother and the nanny state began around 1913.

    Just my opinion. I welcome reading those of others.

    • jackcurtis says:

      Seems sensible enough to me…but I retain my qualms about allowing government to remain the sole source of what is right and wrong, which is what I think results without churches. I trust government to always follow the decision with the best political return to the governors…and fear that seldom proves beneficial to the governed. I don’t deny that churches exact a price in turn; they aren’t the perfect antidote, just, I think, the best we have found to date. It would be comforting to see a plausible replacement on the horizon since the churches seem moribund, but none is visible to me now.

      We have John Adams’ words on some things, his thoughts on others must remain guesses and beyond me.

  5. --Rick says:

    Churches are comprised of people and it is the people who are seeking a positive life who attend and who determine the success or failure of a church. The constitution emphasizes the individual as supreme even to government when it comes to rights and defining the moral code necessary for living as free people. What is needed is a philosophy that recognizes the importance of individual rights and using that philosophy, establishes legal protections against the immoral use of force on others for one’s gain, be it domestic policing and a judiciary or a military capable of protecting this nation and her allies. In order for those conditions to exist and remain in existence, individuals must be encouraged to work hard, to persevere through difficulties, and to take risks in order to reach what to many appear to be unreachable heights.

    Those willing to take the risks while keeping to the basic rule of respecting the rights of others to be free from unauthorized force should be rewarded. Those who choose to be more conservative and eek out a lesser level of success should be encouraged to continue doing so. Finally, those who fail to heed the moral of the fable about the Grasshopper and the Ants and choose to fiddle while the rest of us work should be left to reap what they’ve sown – dependency on the charity of others who voluntarily choose to assist them or to let them lie in the bed they choose for themselves. In a truly free society, it is this latter group that government would use its power to motivate and push to either conform to a minimal level of responsibility or to feel the power of government whenever their irresponsibility results in children being harmed or deprived of a decent standard of living.

    Of course, there is much more that can be examined, discussed and done to build a better society, but no matter how those discussions go, one must keep in mind that the largest minority on the planet is the individual and it is the individual who must act to ensure his own survival and the survival of his community whose preservation, economic and social development is part of each individual members rational self-interest in terms of stability and protection from harm or a loss of liberty. God is welcome in such a scenario, but His presence is not required. What is required is an objective judiciary and an effective police and military power overseen by honest, transparent and restrained executive and legislative bodies doing the will of the people instead of the other way around. We need a people and a government that works on an objective reality (metaphysics), using reason to improve our knowledge of that reality (epistemology), for our own benefit as a primary (survival) and to the benefit of others as a secondary (jobs or other side effects of creative activity). And to ensure the wealth making opportunities of individuals and the nation as a whole, we must use a system of government that sets all free to find their own path to success or mediocrity by imposing minimal restrictions on individuals to assure maximal productive activity of a voluntary nature – capitalism.- the only system of politics compatible with true liberty.

    Thank you very much for this opportunity to engage in a stimulating discussion and rational dialogue. I will do all I can to sent as many new readers as I can to your site. My best to you and yours, always.

  6. the unit says:

    Enjoy discussion between you two. Rational is rational…like what is is. I deal with folks dailey who depend on faith. One on one with our transactions one to the other. We don’t screw each other. Day by day. Have to use a little common sense whose outside those parameters. That’s what still weaves Americas fabric.

    • jackcurtis says:

      Yes, trade and civilization depend in the end, upon trust…founded in enlightened self-interest. Unless that is present, all we can have is conflict, seems to me. And with our perceived commonality breading down, I worry how we will hold things together…

  7. the unit says:

    That’s what I meant by outside those parameters. Careful as can be, forever watchful. Been screwed sometimes, but mostly confirmed folks are just like me…leave alone, let alone. Good relations over lots of years far out weigh bad ones. But not the time to knock on my door after hours. Remember when yeah, …knock on door with flat or out of gas cause a light was on at 11 pm? Now light on as warning…I ready, locked and loaded. Sad.

    • jackcurtis says:

      Perhaps the post-Great Depression years in the U.S. were an anomaly, and we’re now reverting to the mean…

      • the unit says:

        Right and I do remember that anomaly lasting into the late 80’s in this little area known as lower LA. No more. I don’t take a chance it is the arithmatic mean outside my door. Just the mean as in the meanies. Lower LA is Fl. panhandle below Alabama.

      • jackcurtis says:

        I think the 1960’s are the dividing line, generally. The morals left along with the arts…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s