2nd US Presidential debate

[Bhs Crew]

It starts in 30 minutes or so. Go watch.

[Sage the Mage]

Did ya hear the rumor that Bush had an earpiece during the first debate?

Anyway, I'm hoping they allow some crazy *** mofo to ask them questions.

[Bhs Crew]

I think if he'd had an earpiece he would've given better responses.

He was wearing something though. If you take the actual video footage (not the picture going around as that could be faked) it matches the picture. If there was somebody talking to him I hope he's got the same guy in his ear tonight, cause it didn't help him much.

[Unreg!stered]

Did ya hear the rumor that Bush had an earpiece during the first debate?

Anyway, I'm hoping they allow some crazy *** mofo to ask them questions.

Sorry, bud. I tried but they said I was too crazy and was afraid even with one question and then forced silence I would make both candidates look like morons. :flip:

[Sage the Mage]

Bush is just plain screwed on domestic issues, I'm looking for him to turn as much of the debate as he can to foreign policy.

And yeah, I don't put too much credit into the whole receiving transmissions thing due to Bush's performance, but you never know...maybe he's the actual cyborg!

[Bhs Crew]

It is starting right now. Go watch.

[Andarcel]

Thus far on Bush: The substance is same old, same old, with his accusations of flip-flopping even less plausible now. His delivery is far better, however. Having an audience and room to move while speaking really helps him on that score.

Kerry's performance is basically the same, perhaps slightly less incisive.

[Sage the Mage]

Bush is angrier this time around.

Arg...apparently there's rumors on the "internets."

[Unreg!stered]

Bush has lost it with all this anger.

[Sage the Mage]

I think he accidentally said Kennedy when he ment Kerry as the most liberal senator. Note to self, look at transcript.

[Andarcel]

Kerry is ruling on Medicare. Bush's counterargument amounts to "Kerry is too liberal, and he hasn't accomplished anything." Notice how he has no accomplishments of his own to produce.

[Andarcel]

Excellent moderator question. Shame that neither candidate touched it.

[Sage the Mage]

Yeah kinda annoyed about that.

[Andarcel]

There the question was again... and swoosh, it went right past them both.

[Sage the Mage]

Kerry hinted sorta at it the next time with the corporate loopholes and repeal of taxes thing.

Bush is going on about being an enviromentalist now :)

[Andarcel]

The man has no shame. He filed 84 dolalrs worth of income from joint-ownership of a timber company, and he has the gall to act like he has no idea what Kerry is talking about. "News to me"? Someone please tell me how that isn't a bald-faced lie.

[Sage the Mage]

Woah that last question is a doozy

[Unreg!stered]

Bush has just made his campaign worse through this debate. I can't see how Bush could claim this was a victory at all. I'll need some time to digest everything properly, but my thoughts now lead me to believe that this was Kerry's day.

[Bhs Crew]

And it's over. Time to see what happens.

[Sage the Mage]

Bush's strongest point was his closer, since he could get away with more stuff in it.

[Bhs Crew]

The man has no shame. He filed 84 dolalrs worth of income from joint-ownership of a timber company, and he has the gall to act like he has no idea what Kerry is talking about. "News to me"? Someone please tell me how that isn't a bald-faced lie.
Could you explain that more? I would love to know the facts on that one and it sounds like you found them somewhere.

[Sage the Mage]

BUSH: Let me see where to start here.

First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all. And that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134937,00.html
Hehe found it :)

[Unreg!stered]

41% Bush
44% Kerry

At least, according to ABC instant poll.

[Bhs Crew]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134937,00.html
Hehe found it :)
How do I see the second half of the transcript?

[Andarcel]

Could you explain that more? I would love to know the facts on that one and it sounds like you found them somewhere.
I cheated and got it off Atrios, who is obviously highly partisan although I think usually pretty honest. He got it from http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265, but it looks like factcheck is currently getting snowed under. Either that, or the link is broken. I'll see if I can find it somewhere else.

[Sage the Mage]

The transcript I gave you was for the full debate I think. Its still considered debate #2 if that confused ya.

[Bhs Crew]

Ahh thanks the second half wasn't loading for me before.

I wanted to make sure I heard this quote right. And I did.

The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, "And the world would be a lot better off."

He couldn't be more right. Now the transcript person added quotes around the last sentence but that's not the way Bush said it. Oh well. Still great.

[Elorion]

Wow, with out me here to keep you guys on your toes, it just goes back to good old Bush bashing eh? Bush showed command, he showed people that he is the president and that Kerry is the most liberal senater in Washington. FINALLY!

Bush put Kerry in his place. Strait out. :yep:

Im not debating this... Starting a new job today.

[Booms]

I guess you'd say I'm a good steward of the land.

I cringed when he said that.

: I own a timber company?

(LAUGHTER)

That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Need some wood?

(LAUGHTER)

If you go to factcheck, it turns out that Bush does own a timber company. I really really really hope that he gets a lot of **** for pretending that he didn't.

[Father Jack]

If you go to factcheck, it turns out that Bush does own a timber company. I really really really hope that he gets a lot of **** for pretending that he didn't.

I agree, he deflected the point yet highlighted it, that having earned such a small amount of money from this timber company he qualified as a small business. Yet perhaps he doesn't actually remember it, but thats the problem. People set up tax shelters to keep more of thier taxes all the time. This is the tax loop hole Kerry was talking about.

[GaiaWombat]

Why the hell are only liberals posting in here? Bush did not do a bad job. He did much better than the first debate, without question. His answers had substance and he didn't repeat the same thing over and over again. He spoke with conviction and sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Enough with the Bush-bashing, please. As I've said before, I don't think he's the best president we've ever had, but this topic just has way too much of a liberal slant.

[Father Jack]

Why the hell are only liberals posting in here? Bush did not do a bad job. He did much better than the first debate, without question. His answers had substance and he didn't repeat the same thing over and over again. He spoke with conviction and sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Enough with the Bush-bashing, please. As I've said before, I don't think he's the best president we've ever had, but this topic just has way too much of a liberal slant.


I agree he did better than first debate, yet he behaved far from presidentially. He was rude to the moderator(interupting and talking over him several times), agressive and gittery. At times he was not incontrol of himself. He did repeat the same 'news bites' over and over again and did not address the issues but instead focused his attack on the same tired 'Kerry the flip floper/ Liberal'.

He did give some good responses to questions, and thats when he was at his best, but these momments were few.

[Elorion]

I cringed when he said that.



If you go to factcheck, it turns out that Bush does own a timber company. I really really really hope that he gets a lot of **** for pretending that he didn't.
Ya good point. Makes your side of the argument really shine doesnt it. Bush still wipped Kerry's arse. hahahahaha. I just went out and cut down some timber this morning and sold it BABY. $89. I own a timber company. WOOHOO. Im just like Bush. All this cash rolling in.

This isnt even a point Booms. I hope Kerry learns that the only way to be sucsessful in this life is to cut down timber and sell it for $89. A business that makes $89 is such a big deal, that we should hang Bush because he never even new he owned it. OMG WOOHOO Burn Baby Burn!

If I ever find out any of you own a business that sells timber... well damn Your going to hang to. MUAHAHAHA.

[Booms]

It has nothing to do with what kind of company he owns. It has to do with the fact that he blatantly lied on national TV to make Kerry look bad.

I also found it annoying when he would interrupt Kerry and the moderator, it made him look very immature.

[Booms]

Why the hell are only liberals posting in here? Bush did not do a bad job. He did much better than the first debate, without question. His answers had substance and he didn't repeat the same thing over and over again. He spoke with conviction and sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Enough with the Bush-bashing, please. As I've said before, I don't think he's the best president we've ever had, but this topic just has way too much of a liberal slant.

Doing a good or bad job is a subjective thing. Interrupting people made him look bad. Lieing about the environment made him look bad. I don't care if he speaks with conviction when he lies to the American people, a lie is a lie.

And that whole thing about Kerry being the most liberal senator? Seriously, if he has to throw labels around to win a debate he isn't fit to be president.

[Sage the Mage]

Oh and I found this:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm

Looks like Kerry isn't the most liberal senator :)

[Mastgrr]

Bush didn't even say Kerry. He said Kennedy was the liberal senator, but adressed it to Kerry. Either Bush just for no reason wanted to point out to Kerry that Kennedy in his opinion was the most liberal senator, or he mixed up words again.

Weird. I always thought Kennedy was the most liberal Senator. Appearantly not. Thanks for that link Sage the Mage.

Zell Miller is the least liberal. Go figure...

[Sage the Mage]

Zell Miller is the duel guy right? That was hilarity.

[Elorion]

Oh and I found this:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0830nj_liberalratings.htm

Looks like Kerry isn't the most liberal senator :)
"When the tabulations came in for 2003, John Kerry had the highest composite liberal score of any senator.

But there was an asterisk. As with other lawmakers who were running for president, Kerry missed a lot of votes in 2003 -- 37 of the 62 that were being used in the vote ratings. He didn't vote often enough to merit scores in the social-policy and foreign-affairs categories. (Under our system, a member has to participate in at least half the votes in a category to receive a score in that category.) He did cast enough votes (19 of 32) in the economic category to get a rating. On those votes, Kerry took the "liberal" position every time.
That was the basis for Kerry's receiving a composite liberal score for 2003 that was higher than any other senator's score."

Reffering to the exact same link you just gave us. Any more questions?

[Xaf]

That debate embarrassed me as an American citizen. Bush is so damn stupid it makes me want to pull my hair out. I swear to god I could have done a better job than he did. Even my way right wing roomate, who votes republican no matter what, related bush and his "jokes" to our semi ******** friend.

[Elorion]

That debate embarrassed me as an American citizen. Bush is so damn stupid it makes me want to pull my hair out. I swear to god I could have done a better job than he did. Even my way right wing roomate, who votes republican no matter what, related bush and his "jokes" to our semi ******** friend.
Ever thought about moving to France?

[Mastgrr]

Ever thought about moving to France?
Wow. That's American. Those who dissent ought to move out of the country...

[Sage the Mage]

Reffering to the exact same link you just gave us. Any more questions?

Yes your choice of the use of bold :) Anywho, its not up for debate, they state in the article that the standard is the lifetime average, not the yearly, as well as admitting that Kerry didn't even qualify for 2/3 of the ratings in 2003.

[Elorion]

Wow. That's American. Those who dissent ought to move out of the country...
No thats not why I asked. Alot of liberals, expecially ones in Hollywood, said they were going to move to France the first time Bush got elected. Its funny how none of them did. I was asking to see if Xaf feels the same way. What about you Mastgrr?

[Xaf]

No thats not why I asked. Alot of liberals, expecially ones in Hollywood, said they were going to move to France the first time Bush got elected. Its funny how none of them did. I was asking to see if Xaf feels the same way. What about you Mastgrr?

Im not a liberal, and i dont like france.

[Sage the Mage]

Elorion, I think it was one guy and he said Canada I think.

[Bhs Crew]

Just thought I'd post this here.
http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/content/goodtobeindc/frameset.html

You should enjoy it regardless of your political feelings. If you don't, move to some other country.

[Unreg!stered]

I think what everyone on both sides of the political spectrum on these boards is forgetting is that the keys to this election are the swing voters. The vast majority of you have already decided who you are voting for, and with the country so evenly polarized it makes the undecided voters that much more important. So, instead of looking at these debates through the eyes of your own biases, try and think of whether or not the swing voters would sway one way or the other from the debate. :thumbsup:

It's tough to say, but having given it a day I think Kerry might have won a bit from last nights debate.

[Elorion]

Elorion, I think it was one guy and he said Canada I think.
There was a big group that all agreed they were going to move to France. Im sure there were also those that said they wanted to go to Canada though.

[Xaf]

Ya good point. Makes your side of the argument really shine doesnt it. Bush still wipped Kerry's arse. hahahahaha. I just went out and cut down some timber this morning and sold it BABY. $89. I own a timber company. WOOHOO. Im just like Bush. All this cash rolling in.

This isnt even a point Booms. I hope Kerry learns that the only way to be sucsessful in this life is to cut down timber and sell it for $89. A business that makes $89 is such a big deal, that we should hang Bush because he never even new he owned it. OMG WOOHOO Burn Baby Burn!

If I ever find out any of you own a business that sells timber... well damn Your going to hang to. MUAHAHAHA.

What are you even talking about here? This has nothing to do with what kerry was pointing out.

I guess thats why people like bush, hes as dumb as they are.

[powermongor]

I agree he did better than first debate, yet he behaved far from presidentially. He was rude to the moderator(interupting and talking over him several times), agressive and gittery. At times he was not incontrol of himself. He did repeat the same 'news bites' over and over again and did not address the issues but instead focused his attack on the same tired 'Kerry the flip floper/ Liberal'.

That's why Bush is gonna pwn you liberals, you really can't see why yet either. Even after all is said and done, America still loves the man. I bet it drives you guys crazy.

[Eiger]

I can't wait until the election's over and Pm gets to eat a whole lot of his own crap, hehe. Gonna be fun fun fun!

[Bhs Crew]

I think what everyone on both sides of the political spectrum on these boards is forgetting is that the keys to this election are the swing voters. The vast majority of you have already decided who you are voting for, and with the country so evenly polarized it makes the undecided voters that much more important. So, instead of looking at these debates through the eyes of your own biases, try and think of whether or not the swing voters would sway one way or the other from the debate. :thumbsup:

It's tough to say, but having given it a day I think Kerry might have won a bit from last nights debate.
I should have a poll listing the results of the debate by state in a few days.
It helps cause you can see how the debate played out in the various battleground states.

While you wait take a look at the latest state polls
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Andarcel]

Ya good point. Makes your side of the argument really shine doesnt it. Bush still wipped Kerry's arse. hahahahaha. I just went out and cut down some timber this morning and sold it BABY. $89. I own a timber company. WOOHOO. Im just like Bush. All this cash rolling in.

This isnt even a point Booms. I hope Kerry learns that the only way to be sucsessful in this life is to cut down timber and sell it for $89. A business that makes $89 is such a big deal, that we should hang Bush because he never even new he owned it. OMG WOOHOO Burn Baby Burn!

If I ever find out any of you own a business that sells timber... well damn Your going to hang to. MUAHAHAHA.
You don't have the faintest idea what Kerry's point was, do you? Not a clue. Wow.

Here it is again. See if you can deal with it this time around.

According to the standard Bush is using for "msall business" when he claims that there are 900,000 small businesses with income over $200,000 that nonetheless qualify as individual enterprises, Bush himself qualifies as a "small business." So do many other wealthy people who take some microscopic role in a small business in order to lower their taxes.

In essence, Bush's claim that Kerry will raise taxes on small businesses is complete BS. Unless, of course, you think W. should be counted as a small business.

Simple, straighforward, and highly relevant point, which is why I'm sure you won't want to touch it.

I'm calling it a tie. Bush managed almost no significant rebuttal of Kerry's points, but he was far better stylistic and managed more offense. Of course, given the way Bush is bleeding momentum like a stuck pig, a tie is his loss right now.

[Elorion]

You don't have the faintest idea what Kerry's point was, do you? Not a clue. Wow.

Here it is again. See if you can deal with it this time around.

According to the standard Bush is using for "msall business" when he claims that there are 900,000 small businesses with income over $200,000 that nonetheless qualify as individual enterprises, Bush himself qualifies as a "small business." So do many other wealthy people who take some microscopic role in a small business in order to lower their taxes.

In essence, Bush's claim that Kerry will raise taxes on small businesses is complete BS. Unless, of course, you think W. should be counted as a small business.

Simple, straighforward, and highly relevant point, which is why I'm sure you won't want to touch it.

I'm calling it a tie. Bush managed almost no significant rebuttal of Kerry's points, but he was far better stylistic and managed more offense. Of course, given the way Bush is bleeding momentum like a stuck pig, a tie is his loss right now.

I wont want to touch it? *poke*

You didnt get my point. *poke*

This is simply a dumb argument. *poke*

Doesnt matter. *poke*

*poke* *poke* *poke*

Bush is still going to win the election. *poke*

[Pongle]

Kerry is looking good according to http://www.electoral-vote.com so i'm almost recovering from Labour's loss here in Australia (our democrats basically) and our Liberal (amazingly conservative) party getting thier fourth term.

[Oberon]

That's why Bush is gonna pwn you liberals, you really can't see why yet either. Even after all is said and done, America still loves the man. I bet it drives you guys crazy.

"Red" America may love the man but "blue" America hates his guts. One reason I dispise the electoral college is the fact it gives voters in typically Republican states more voting power than voters in typically Democratic states. Here's a typical election map - notice how much red there is.

http://img60.exs.cx/img60/1120/map18.jpg

Makes you think most of the country supports Bush doesn't it? Yet when the population of a state is considered, here's what the election map looks like.

http://img60.exs.cx/img60/2673/map19.jpg

Quite a difference! The reason is states with higher populations like New York, California, Illinois, etc tend to vote Democratic while states with lower populations like Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, etc tend to vote Republican. Since the number of electoral votes a state gets is equal to the number of House Representatives they have PLUS the number of Senators, it gives states with smaller populations a disproportionate say in who governs the nation. If electoral votes were based strictly on population, the current electoral count would be 235 for Kerry and 198 for Bush (54% Kerry, 46% Bush). As it stands now though, Kerry is at 270 while Bush is at 248 (52% Kerry, 48% Bush). Basically the electoral system gives Bush a 2% bonus in electoral votes which in a race this close can be enough to change the election. If the Democrats win the popular vote yet lose the electoral vote AGAIN it will prove our current electoral system is broke.

[Sage the Mage]

Who's that teal party those people near Michigan are voting for? :)

[Booms]

The Great Lakes support the Green Party. Duh.

[Andarcel]

I wont want to touch it? *poke*

You didnt get my point. *poke*

This is simply a dumb argument. *poke*

Doesnt matter. *poke*

*poke* *poke* *poke*

Bush is still going to win the election. *poke*
Yeah? Like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, eh? :clap:

[Bhs Crew]

If the Democrats win the popular vote yet lose the electoral vote AGAIN it will prove our current electoral system is broke.
Well then the next step is how to fix it. Since you're never going to convince the small states to pass an amendment reducing their power, the only way is to get state after state to change the way they appoint electors.

Or I guess the Blue people could try whining some more instead. That worked well for Gore.

[Bhs Crew]

Yeah? Like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, eh? :clap:
I don't think I'm ever going to see either of those guys admit they were wrong and change a belief but keep it up. Eventually facts affect even the most stubborn of men.

[Glurin]

The electoral college gives states with smaller population a say in the election, not more say than states with higher population. Without it, the states with higher populations get a disproportionate say in the election. If what happened last election happens this time, it doesn't mean the system is broken. Its just doing exactly as its ment to do. Give the smaller states a say in the election.

[Mastgrr]

Kerry is looking good according to http://www.electoral-vote.com so i'm almost recovering from Labour's loss here in Australia (our democrats basically) and our Liberal (amazingly conservative) party getting thier fourth term.

WOW! I haven't checked the Electorate Vote for a while, but *WHAZAM!*

Bush is getting his butt kicked. Hahahahahahah conservatives! How does it feel to be losers, cheering for a loser of a president? Man, I'd hate to be supporting somebody that'll lose as the loser he is.

Pongle, the reason why your liberal party in Australia is a conservative party is because it's using the classic term of liberal. For example, to be more politically correct the Democratic Party in the US is Socially Liberal, while the Republican Party is Liberally Conservative. The old liberals are refered today as Liberterians, since liberalism (or the word) through time adopted ideas of a social-net in society (all-covering healthcare, etc) while conservatives just haven't done that since and hence they're conservative (slow to change).

[Oberon]

The electoral college gives states with smaller population a say in the election, not more say than states with higher population. Without it, the states with higher populations get a disproportionate say in the election. If what happened last election happens this time, it doesn't mean the system is broken. Its just doing exactly as its ment to do. Give the smaller states a say in the election.

Yes it does give small states a disproportionate say in the election. Montana, for example, would have 1 electoral vote if it were based on population. Instead it has 3 electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes but would have 53 if based on population. The current electoral process thereby increases the influence of a voter in Montana by 200% but only increases the influence of a Californian's vote by less than 4%. You claim without it "states with higher populations get a disproportionate say in the election" but what do you mean by disproportionate? If the power of their vote is based on population - i.e. one person = one vote - then how is it disproportionate? Smallers states should and will have a say but they shouldn't have a disproportionate say. Let's put this another way. If you're afraid certain populational minorities (in this case states) deserve more say then how about other populational minorities like blacks, hispanics, asians, gays, jews, etc? Clearly the current system which doesn't give those minorities a little boost explains why every President has been a white male. Maybe if blacks and hispanics got say 1.5 votes, asians, gays and jews got 2 votes each (due to smaller populations) they would have a say in the election as you put it?

[Bhs Crew]

How about each group of people who want the change work to pass a law in their own states making the vote proportional. Yes it will alter the landscape to the advantage of some in the short run but it's the best thing to do in the long run.

Small states would still get their importance, but the people holding minority positions (Republicans in California, Democrats in Oklahoma) would get some say in the election.

[Andarcel]

Well then the next step is how to fix it. Since you're never going to convince the small states to pass an amendment reducing their power, the only way is to get state after state to change the way they appoint electors.

Or I guess the Blue people could try whining some more instead. That worked well for Gore.
1) No state will ever voluntary reduce the power of its voters.

2) Since the number of electoral votes for a state are fixed by the Constitution, it will require an amendment anyway. States can't actually do the job themselves.

[Tevush Kasht]

So it comes down to who should elect the president: the States or the people ? Another question I have is what the effect would be on the amount of voters, as I can understand how it isn't very motivating to actually go vote if you already know that your state will choose Republican/Democrat before the actual election.

PS: Our own (Belgian) system has a lot worse flaws and loopholes, but then again, we don't assign nearly as much power to a single politician. (On a sidenote, voting here is mandatory)

[Bhs Crew]

1) No state will ever voluntary reduce the power of its voters.

2) Since the number of electoral votes for a state are fixed by the Constitution, it will require an amendment anyway. States can't actually do the job themselves.
You misunderstand; I meant each state could vote to appoint their electors proportionally to the vote received by each candidate in that state. The small states would still have their power. Some states have already done something similar that this, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

[Oberon]

You misunderstand; I meant each state could vote to appoint their electors proportionally to the vote received by each candidate in that state. The small states would still have their power. Some states have already done something similar that this, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

I believe either Vermont or New Hampshire (can't remember which) is already set up like this and Colorado is looking into it.

[Bhs Crew]

I believe the two states that have it are Maine and Nebraska, though don't quote me on that.

[Andarcel]

Colorado's looking into it, I believe.

[Bhs Crew]

Colorado's looking into it, I believe.
The best part is that if it passes in Colorado it applies to this election. That could cause some sparks.

[Oberon]

The best part is that if it passes in Colorado it applies to this election. That could cause some sparks.

Colorado is currently favored for Bush so if they pass it Kerry would benefit.

[Glurin]

You claim without it "states with higher populations get a disproportionate say in the election" but what do you mean by disproportionate?

If two or three states alone can decide who is president, thats disproportionate. How are the smaller states represented if the largest states are always decideing who should be president?

If you're afraid certain populational minorities (in this case states) deserve more say then how about other populational minorities like blacks, hispanics, asians, gays, jews, etc? Clearly the current system which doesn't give those minorities a little boost explains why every President has been a white male. Maybe if blacks and hispanics got say 1.5 votes, asians, gays and jews got 2 votes each (due to smaller populations) they would have a say in the election as you put it?

You've got it all wrong. This is the United States of America, not Minorities of America or just America. Each state is basicly its own little country. With just a popular vote, where states with really high populations get all the say, you might as well call it the Californian Empire. An empire is not a union.

[Andarcel]

If two or three states alone can decide who is president, thats disproportionate. How are the smaller states represented if the largest states are always decideing who should be president?



You've got it all wrong. This is the United States of America, not Minorities of America or just America. Each state is basicly its own little country. With just a popular vote, where states with really high populations get all the say, you might as well call it the Californian Empire. An empire is not a union.
Ooookay...

So you'd call the UK the London Empire, then?

Me, personally, I don't think of each state as its own little country. I think of them as districts in the country of the United States of America. Maybe I'm just a crazy patriot that way. Of course, if people had follwoed my philospophy in the 19h century, we wouldn't have had the Civil War, so maybe there are some benefits to it.

I think - and this is probably totally off the wall - that if you live in California, your vote should count for as much as if you live in Montana. Insane, I know, totally against the definition of democracy, but there it is. If I live in California, I don't think my vote should count for less, and if I live in NH, I don't think it should count for more.

[Sage the Mage]

Psh we got rid of state's rights back in the 1860s.

[Oberon]

If two or three states alone can decide who is president, thats disproportionate. How are the smaller states represented if the largest states are always decideing who should be president?....[snip]....Each state is basicly its own little country. With just a popular vote, where states with really high populations get all the say, you might as well call it the Californian Empire. An empire is not a union.

The smaller states should be represented by the votes of their citizens - exactly the same as the larger states. Each state is not its own little country - that belief was settled in 1865. With just a popular vote the states with the highest population get proportional say - not all the say - in who governs them. Smaller states will still have a say - just not a biased say. For example Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota have 3 electoral votes each for a total of 15 - the same as my state of North Carolina. The populations of those 5 states totals 3,465,827 compared to 8,407,248 for North Carolina. That means my vote has only 40% of the value in Raleigh than it would if I moved to Fargo. Likewise, California, with 35,484,453 people and 55 electoral votes, has over ten times the population of these five states yet less than 4 times the electoral power so the vote of someone in Los Angeles has only 36% the value of a vote in Cheyenne. Does this seem fair to you? How does one person = one vote = empire???

[Bhs Crew]

Each state is not its own little country - that belief was settled in 1865.
I assume you don't believe whoever wins the war is always right, so don't bother to use that argument. If you do believe the war resolves the issue correctly then we have an easy way to solve almost any dispute.

Whether the small states having slightly more power is good or bad doesn't really matter, as the small states will never vote to give up their power and you'll never get a constitutional amendment passed without them.

What you can do to make it fairer is get each state to award its electoral votes proportionally. This is hard to do but far more manageable than a constitutional amendment.

Psh we got rid of state's rights back in the 1860s.
Yes a bunch of racists used the states rights argument. That doesn't make states rights disappear or the constitution rewritten.

PETA is against George Bush but it doesn't mean he should be re-elected.

[Bhs Crew]

Me, personally, I don't think of each state as its own little country. I think of them as districts in the country of the United States of America. Maybe I'm just a crazy patriot that way. Of course, if people had follwoed my philospophy in the 19h century, we wouldn't have had the Civil War, so maybe there are some benefits to it.

If no one had followed your philosophy we wouldn't have had a civil war. It was caused by some people following your philosophy and forcing it on others who didn't believe in it. That's not the issue here though.

[Glurin]

I said "basicly", not "is". The difference is subtle, but its there.

Anyway...

For example Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota have 3 electoral votes each for a total of 15 - the same as my state of North Carolina. The populations of those 5 states totals 3,465,827 compared to 8,407,248 for North Carolina. That means my vote has only 40% of the value in Raleigh than it would if I moved to Fargo. Likewise, California, with 35,484,453 people and 55 electoral votes, has over ten times the population of these five states yet less than 4 times the electoral power so the vote of someone in Los Angeles has only 36% the value of a vote in Cheyenne. Does this seem fair to you?

The value of votes in the smaller states is reduced to zero with a popular vote, because even if they all voted for the same person, the three largest still decide the election. It won't matter who anyone in Montana or Wyoming vote for because they are overwelmed by California. Does that seem fair to you?

The electoral college is ment to be a ballance between giving the larger states more say, but also giving the smaller states a say at all. If population was even across the board, we wouldn't need such a system. But with population as disproportional as it is, we need it so that the vote of someone in alaska actualy matters at all.

[Oberon]

I assume you don't believe whoever wins the war is always right, so don't bother to use that argument. If you do believe the war resolves the issue correctly then we have an easy way to solve almost any dispute.

Being a southerner I am acutely aware of the issues involving state's rights and the Civil War. I personally am for the idea of a more decentralized government with greater power given back to the states. My opinion doesn't change the fact that after the Civil War the federal government became far more powerful while state governments weakened. This happened even more after the two World Wars. I'm not judging what it right or wrong - simply stating the obvious.


Whether the small states having slightly more power is good or bad doesn't really matter, as the small states will never vote to give up their power and you'll never get a constitutional amendment passed without them.

What you can do to make it fairer is get each state to award its electoral votes proportionally. This is hard to do but far more manageable than a constitutional amendment.

I agree 100% with you here.

[Oberon]

The value of votes in the smaller states is reduced to zero with a popular vote, because even if they all voted for the same person, the three largest still decide the election. It won't matter who anyone in Montana or Wyoming vote for because they are overwelmed by California. Does that seem fair to you?

Montana, Wyoming and California are political labels we give to artificial partitions on a map. California cannot overwhelm Montana because neither objectively exist. A Californian however, is a human being who happens to live within that aritificial bounds other human beings have agreed upon to be called "California". That human being should have the same value in an election as another human being in another artifical boundary - like Montana. What matters to me is 1 person = 1 vote. That's all. It's that simple. It's fair. Now assuming all 35,484,453 Californians vote one way and all 917,621 Montanans vote the other way, yes it is fair for the voters of California to drown out the voters of Montana - they outnumber them more than 35-to-1.

[Bhs Crew]

Being a southerner I am acutely aware of the issues involving state's rights and the Civil War. I personally am for the idea of a more decentralized government with greater power given back to the states. My opinion doesn't change the fact that after the Civil War the federal government became far more powerful while state governments weakened. This happened even more after the two World Wars. I'm not judging what it right or wrong - simply stating the obvious.
Works for me. I agree 100%.

[Andarcel]

If no one had followed your philosophy we wouldn't have had a civil war. It was caused by some people following your philosophy and forcing it on others who didn't believe in it. That's not the issue here though.
We also wouldn't have had a United States. Are you by any chance one fo those that think of the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression?

[Sage the Mage]

We also wouldn't have had a United States. Are you by any chance one fo those that think of the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression?

I'd call it the War Between the States :)

[Bhs Crew]

We also wouldn't have had a United States. Are you by any chance one fo those that think of the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression?
We'd have two United States. A northern one much like the one we have today and a southern one. I fail to see the country collapsing because some states secede.

And no sorry I'm not going to slap myself with a discredited title so you can ignore my post. I do appreciate your attempt though, as it was the centerpiece of my forum debate tips.

[Glurin]

Montana, Wyoming and California are political labels we give to artificial partitions on a map. California cannot overwhelm Montana because neither objectively exist.

Same goes for the U.S. as a whole, Canada, England, France, etc. None of them objectively exist. So why not let Canada vote in the U.S. election? Or England vote in France's? Why don't we just let the whole world decide who should be running and/or representing each country?

Now assuming all 35,484,453 Californians vote one way and all 917,621 Montanans vote the other way, yes it is fair for the voters of California to drown out the voters of Montana - they outnumber them more than 35-to-1.

And thus Montana never gets represented. How is that fair? Democracy is supposed to be about representing everybody. But if the people on one area always drown out everybody in 47 other areas, how are those 47 other areas being represented?

[Sage the Mage]

We'd have two United States. A northern one much like the one we have today and a southern one. I fail to see the country collapsing because some states secede.

Well it wouldn't collapse, the theory is it woulda become like europe. Probably would have ended up something like a California, Middle, Texas, South, and North. And obviously no Alaska or Hawaii as part of the US.

[Bhs Crew]

Well it wouldn't collapse, the theory is it woulda become like europe. Probably would have ended up something like a California, Middle, Texas, South, and North. And obviously no Alaska or Hawaii as part of the US.
Would that be worse? No idea. It would be different.

Yeah the whole point is that there are advantages and disadvantages to states joining together, but as long as they are allowed to leave it puts a check of power on the federal government. It can't abuse the states too much or they will feel that it is in their best interest to leave. At the moment that check and balance is gone.

[Oberon]

Same goes for the U.S. as a whole, Canada, England, France, etc. None of them objectively exist. So why not let Canada vote in the U.S. election? Or England vote in France's? Why don't we just let the whole world decide who should be running and/or representing each country?

If the people of Canada want to merge with the United States then sure - give them 1 vote per person. Since Canada is a different nation though your comparison is flawed. We're discussing the election of the leader of the United States and the fact that the value of the votes of those living in the United States varies from state to state. Since the President has no [legitimate] authority beyond the boarders of the United States, why should Canadians be able to vote for him unless they accept his authority by merging?

And thus Montana never gets represented. How is that fair? Democracy is supposed to be about representing everybody. But if the people on one area always drown out everybody in 47 other areas, how are those 47 other areas being represented?

It's fair because the people of Montana got their vote - why don't you understand they ARE represented - one vote for every person in Montana - that's their representation. And no three states will control the nation. Here's why...

United States: 281,421,906

California: 35,484,453
Texas: 22,118,509
New York: 19,190,115
Florida: 17,019,068
Illinois: 12,653,544
Pennsylvania: 12,365,455
Ohio: 11,435,798
Michigan: 10,079,985

The combined votes of the top eight states make up just under 50% of the nation's population. The top 3 Democratic-leaning states (CA, NY, IL) currently make up 25% of the nation's population yet get less than 20% of the total electoral votes. Even with a direct vote they would not be able to dictate who becomes President.

[Glurin]

You claim that these borders do not objectivly exist, then you say Canada should have no say in the elections because the borders do exist. Which is it?


Montana: 917,621
Wyoming: 501,242
North Dakota: 633,837

Are you telling me these peoples votes actualy matter when they are drowned out by 35,484,453 liveing in one state? I don't think so. A direct popular vote means that the states with the largest population chooses the president without regard for the smaller states.

Let me try a different angle here. The u.s. is a large nation. We are also very diverse, values and ideals being different from area to area. If the election were decided on popular vote only, the largest states choose the president, meaning that the values of the smaller states, well, have no value.

The electoral college was never intended to reflect popular will. It was designed so that the president would get a ballance between haveing a significant popular vote AND distribution of votes, thus allowing him to represent the country as a whole. Its like a blending of the house and the senate. Speaking of which, do you want to get rid of the senate as well?

[Oberon]

You claim that these borders do not objectivly exist, then you say Canada should have no say in the elections because the borders do exist. Which is it?

You're trying to compare two nonanalogous concepts. We are discussing the differences between states within the same country voting for the leader of that country. The President, whose election we've been discussing here, does not govern Canada. Why should you think they should get a vote too? The reason I mentioned the fact that borders are an artificial concept was because you seemed to be anthropomorphizing California and other states. My point was since all Americans are voting for their common leader, all American votes should count the same. Why do you feel Canadians should vote for someone who doesn't govern them?



Montana: 917,621
Wyoming: 501,242
North Dakota: 633,837

Are you telling me these peoples votes actualy matter when they are drowned out by 35,484,453 liveing in one state? I don't think so. A direct popular vote means that the states with the largest population chooses the president without regard for the smaller states.

Their votes would matter precisely as much as they should matter. There's no reason for the government to value the people of Wyoming more than the people of California.

Let me try a different angle here. The u.s. is a large nation. We are also very diverse, values and ideals being different from area to area. If the election were decided on popular vote only, the largest states choose the president, meaning that the values of the smaller states, well, have no value.

Again the smaller states would still have value - a value in direct proportion to their population which is the basis for any republic. Again I bring up the point of other minorities. You remind us we are a diverse nation which is true. In order to give minorities, like blacks for example who have never had one of their kind elected President, more value for their vote? If you believe someone from Wyoming should be counted more than someone from New York because there are fewer Wyomingians (or whatever the f*ck they call themselves) than New Yorkers, then why not apply that same logic to other minorities?

The electoral college was never intended to reflect popular will. It was designed so that the president would get a ballance between haveing a significant popular vote AND distribution of votes, thus allowing him to represent the country as a whole. Its like a blending of the house and the senate. Speaking of which, do you want to get rid of the senate as well?

The problem is our nation has changed significantly since the days of our founding. For the first 150 years of our existence the executive branch was weak while Congress controlled most of the federal government. In the 20th century, and especially since WW2, the executive branch has experienced rapid growth in size and power. Considering how important the position of President has become, making sure the will of the people is accurately discerned by non-biased elections is vital. It's funny that you mention the Senate since it has changed significantly too since its inception. Senators used to be appointed by state governors but during the 19th century that changed to direct elections. IMO it's somewhat rediculous having two bodies which often can't agree on legislation. It seems having one legislative body with elections every 4 years (instead of 2 for the House and 6 for the Senate) would be sufficient.

[Andarcel]

Would that be worse? No idea. It would be different.

Yeah the whole point is that there are advantages and disadvantages to states joining together, but as long as they are allowed to leave it puts a check of power on the federal government. It can't abuse the states too much or they will feel that it is in their best interest to leave. At the moment that check and balance is gone.
It seems pretty clear that you feel the Southern states should ahve been allowed to secede. (If not, please clarify.) That being the case, you are logically compelled to think of the Civil war as Northern aggression. If you have a problem with that label, perhaps you should rethink your position. If that's not reason enough, then

1)The notion that large chunks of a country are permitted to walk away whenever they feel like it absolutely contrary to the idea of democracy. Don't like the will of the majority? Tough. A system where no one has to abide my majority rule isn't democratic, it's anarchical.

2)The notion that the federal government should be checked by states with the arbitrary value to take their ball and go home doesn't align with history. Most (in fact, I think all with the possible exception of the Civil War) cases of significant conflict between the federal government and indivudal states were precipitated by gross disregard fir human rights. Three guesses which side was busy violating human rights. sorry, I don't buy that Alabama should have been able to secede because it didn't like the end of segregation.

3)And, of course, it unduly emphasizes parochial concerns by dividing the country into regional powerblocks. This forces the federal government to pander to geographical interests above the general interest.

As for whether the world would have been better... well, it's an interesting subject of speculation, isn't it? Japan would probably have ravaged China unopposed and now rule it under an Imperial dynasty. The Soviet Union would probably have gobbled up a hell of a lot more of Europe at the end of WWII. There would almost certainly have been territorial wars between the Union and Confederacy as each sought to drive westward. And yes, slavery would almost certainly still be around, since people don't voluntarily give up the basis of their lifestyle. The Confederacy would most likely have become a plutocracy.

All in all, not a terribly pleasant world to contemplate, and that's assuming the long border between Russia and Japan doesn't spark WWIII.

[Bhs Crew]

1)The notion that large chunks of a country are permitted to walk away whenever they feel like it absolutely contrary to the idea of democracy. Don't like the will of the majority? Tough. A system where no one has to abide my majority rule isn't democratic, it's anarchical.
The whole point of this republic is that the will of the minority is not trampled by the will of the majority. Every part of this government is checked with power from some other. If this country was set up so that the majority could do whatever it wanted we wouldn't even have a senate.

I'm not saying a state could ignore any rule. I'm saying that the states chose to vote themselves into the union and if they felt that the significant advantages were not worth the disadvantages they could vote themselves out. Until the civil war it was basically accepted that a state could leave if it wanted to, though it wouldn't be very smart as it would lose all the economic and military advantages of being in a large country.

It isn't anti-democratic for a people to choose what government they want to live under. A group of people should be able to choose to form their own country if they want to, much like Ireland or Slovakia.

2)The notion that the federal government should be checked by states with the arbitrary value to take their ball and go home doesn't align with history. Most (in fact, I think all with the possible exception of the Civil War) cases of significant conflict between the federal government and indivudal states were precipitated by gross disregard fir human rights. Three guesses which side was busy violating human rights. sorry, I don't buy that Alabama should have been able to secede because it didn't like the end of segregation.
That's simply not true. Some of the conflicts were about human rights, but many of them were about tariffs, taxes, public works projects, etc.
When in doubt the conflicts were about money and power just like most conflicts are. Slavery was part of that but it wasn't all of that.

3)And, of course, it unduly emphasizes parochial concerns by dividing the country into regional powerblocks. This forces the federal government to pander to geographical interests above the general interest.
No it forces the federal government to serve the entire country and not pander to one group over another. There are many disadvantages to leaving the union. The citizens of the state in question would have to feel like they are truly being given the short end of the stick before they would secede.

All in all, not a terribly pleasant world to contemplate, and that's assuming the long border between Russia and Japan doesn't spark WWIII.
There's no way we can know for sure what would've happened, so there's no point in trying. A hypothetical future isn't the issue here. We're just talking about the balance of power and the rights of people to form their own government.

[Andarcel]

A hypothetical future is THE issue here. How history would play out under your philosophy is vitally important to the question fo whether it should have been pursued. Since this view has no significance today - no state is planning on leaving the Union any time soon - the question of alternate history is almost the only relevant issue. Of course we can't know for sure. Doesn't matter. All we have to weigh are probable outcomes.

It is the states, not the federal government, that have a long and honored tradition of trampling minority rights, Native Americans excluded. States rights arguments have at every stage in history been almost the sole argument used in defense of atrocities against African Americans. This is of course, why conservatives became so fond of it in the first place. If you can find me an example where a state contravened federal mandate in favor of minorities, I might revise this view. Otherwise, you'll get no sympathy on that score here.

It seems we have a misunderstanding on the nature of significant conflict. By "significant," I mean those conflicts that might actually have led to secession, such as those where troops actually had to be used to force state compliance.

No it forces the federal government to serve the entire country and not pander to one group over another.

If you want me to take this seriously, find at least speculative support for it. The reasons why our current system panders to geographical blocks - such as expatriated Cubans, for example - are obvious. If you want to argue against that and in favor of the opposite, muster something more substantial than flat contradiction.

I'm saying that the states chose to vote themselves into the union and if they felt that the significant advantages were not worth the disadvantages they could vote themselves out. If they reserved the right at the time they voted, sure. But with the exception of Texas, they didn't. The conditions of their acceptance were based on the guarantee of perpetuity. The US depends on their abiding by that promise. Any large-scale defection effectively destroys the US as we understand it, and therefore it has both the right and the necessity of enforcing those bonds by any means necessary.

A group of people should be able to choose to form their own country if they want to, much like Ireland or Slovakia. No, not like Ireland or Slovakia at all. Both were subjugated nations, Ireland by the British, Slovakia by the USSR.

And when all's said and done, I've racked my brain but I can't come up with a circumstance in which the right to secede is beneficial on any scale. Perhaps you could help me there.

So... how about that War of Northern Aggression?

[Tevush Kasht]

You're not talking about a hypothetical future, but a hypothetical present. You cannot possibly have the slightest idea how the world would look now if your civil war had not happened or had another outcome. Possibilities range from a nucleair winter to a paradise.

[Bhs Crew]

A hypothetical future is THE issue here. How history would play out under your philosophy is vitally important to the question fo whether it should have been pursued. Since this view has no significance today - no state is planning on leaving the Union any time soon - the question of alternate history is almost the only relevant issue. Of course we can't know for sure. Doesn't matter. All we have to weigh are probable outcomes.
The relevant issue is whether a group of people who want to leave a free country should be allowed to. My answer is yes, it appears your answer is no. This has relevance all over the world today (if not currently in the United States), as there are many parts of countries that want to secede.
If you want me to take this seriously, find at least speculative support for it. The reasons why our current system panders to geographical blocks - such as expatriated Cubans, for example - are obvious. If you want to argue against that and in favor of the opposite, muster something more substantial than flat contradiction.
I wasn't arguing that pandering wouldn't happen. However, it wouldn't happen to an extent that one state would feel shafted enough to leave. Currently, to my knowledge there are no states that want to leave so this is not a problem, but it could be again in the future.
If they reserved the right at the time they voted, sure. But with the exception of Texas, they didn't. The conditions of their acceptance were based on the guarantee of perpetuity. The US depends on their abiding by that promise. Any large-scale defection effectively destroys the US as we understand it, and therefore it has both the right and the necessity of enforcing those bonds by any means necessary.
Most of the southern states believed they had the right to leave the union, that's why they tried. If they had known that the North was going to later get the idea that no one could leave they never would've signed in the first place. No where in the constitution is succession forbidden.

No, not like Ireland or Slovakia at all. Both were subjugated nations, Ireland by the British, Slovakia by the USSR.
Actually Slovakia voted to secede from the Czech Republic.

And when all's said and done, I've racked my brain but I can't come up with a circumstance in which the right to secede is beneficial on any scale. Perhaps you could help me there.
The right to secede is important to keep the majority from passing laws screwing over a particular state or people. As long as a state has the right to leave if they truly are getting shafted, that keeps the majority in check. Our system is one of checks and balances but right now there is no real check on the power of the federal government. There used to be one.

So... how about that War of Northern Aggression?
Works for me. I don't care what we call it as long as we are talking about the same war.

[Oberon]

Just my 2¢ but I have to agree that if the majority of the population of a state wishes to secede then there is nothing the federal government can do Constitutionally to prevent it. In fact article Article X states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits secession Article X would imply that states do hav the right to secede.

[Andarcel]

The relevant issue is whether a group of people who want to leave a free country should be allowed to. My answer is yes, it appears your answer is no. This has relevance all over the world today (if not currently in the United States), as there are many parts of countries that want to secede. If they structrues analagous to the US, sure. I can't think of any that do.

Of course people should be allowed to leave a country they don't like, whether in groups or individually. The issue is whether they get to take land with them, removing it from the US landmass.

I wasn't arguing that pandering wouldn't happen. However, it wouldn't happen to an extent that one state would feel shafted enough to leave. Currently, to my knowledge there are no states that want to leave so this is not a problem, but it could be again in the future. So we have the choice between a state-centric system that enforces readily observable pandering vs a system that might permit some extreme (and highly improbable) form of descriminatory pandering in the future. This is not a toughy for me, personally.


Most of the southern states believed they had the right to leave the union, that's why they tried. If they had known that the North was going to later get the idea that no one could leave they never would've signed in the first place. No where in the constitution is succession forbidden. The Southern states believed they had the God-given right, nay, the duty to keep blacks as slaves. Their opinion of their rights counts for very little with me. What matters is what they agreed to when joining, and there was no seperation clause in that agreement. And don't tell me they didn't know that what they were agreeing to.

Actually Slovakia voted to secede from the Czech Republic. Actually, Czechoslovakia was an artificial union created by the USSR. Of course it amicably dissolved after the fall of the Soviets. How is this relevant to us, exactly?

The right to secede is important to keep the majority from passing laws screwing over a particular state or people. As long as a state has the right to leave if they truly are getting shafted, that keeps the majority in check. Our system is one of checks and balances but right now there is no real check on the power of the federal government. There used to be one. Clearly it's not "necessary," as states are not experiencing your hypothetical extreme of descrimination under the current system.

If you can actually answer the question, I suggest you do so. More nebelous references to some shadowy future evil are deeply unconvincing, all the more so as it's the basis of your entire argument.

Works for me. I don't care what we call it as long as we are talking about the same war. Ok, now I'll phrase it so you can't duck it: do you believe Lincoln was wrong to wage war against the Southern states?

Just my 2¢ but I have to agree that if the majority of the population of a state wishes to secede then there is nothing the federal government can do Constitutionally to prevent it. In fact article Article X states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." As there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits secession Article X would imply that states do hav the right to secede. Unless the states forfeited their right to secession.

If you can find me an example where a state contravened federal mandate in favor of minorities, I might revise this view. Otherwise, you'll get no sympathy on that score here.Unless someone answers that point, it's going to stand. If it stands, then it will also stand that states' rights is often a tool - indeed, the only tool - used to protect the abuse of minorities from meddling interference by them librals who think darkies should go to the same schools as decent white children, and states' rights are never used in the opposite fashion. And if that stands, Bhs, your argument is toast. Whatever the possible abuses of the federal government in a speculated distant future, they cannot compare to all-too-recent flagrant abuses of minorities by states.

[Bhs Crew]

Of course people should be allowed to leave a country they don't like, whether in groups or individually. The issue is whether they get to take land with them, removing it from the US landmass.
The land is owned by the people and the government which is an entity of the people. Of course they get to take it with them.

The Southern states believed they had the God-given right, nay, the duty to keep blacks as slaves. Their opinion of their rights counts for very little with me. What matters is what they agreed to when joining, and there was no seperation clause in that agreement. And don't tell me they didn't know that what they were agreeing to.
They new exactly what they were getting into. They signed a constitution voluntarily and planned to leave if it didn't work out which the constitution allows as Oberon pointed out.

Actually, Czechoslovakia was an artificial union created by the USSR. Of course it amicably dissolved after the fall of the Soviets. How is this relevant to us, exactly?
The Slovak part of Czechoslovakia felt that they would be better off as their own country. They held a vote and voted to split from the more powerful Czech half. No bloodshed, no wars, just a people seceding and forming their own country. They managed to take the land they were on too.

Ok, now I'll phrase it so you can't duck it: do you believe Lincoln was wrong to wage war against the Southern states?
Very much so. Not only did the constitution allow them to secede but Lincoln did more unconstitutional acts then any President before or after him. I have no interest in ducking them as proving Lincoln's presidency to be horribly unconstitutional is the easiest point to make in this entire discussion.

Unless the states forfeited their right to secession.
Where did they do this?

Unless someone answers that point, it's going to stand. If it stands, then it will also stand that states' rights is often a tool - indeed, the only tool - used to protect the abuse of minorities from meddling interference by them librals who think darkies should go to the same schools as decent white children, and states' rights are never used in the opposite fashion.
I believe that the construction should apply to the states as long as they are part of the Union. This means segregation is not allowed.
States rights have been used to argue for medical marijuana, and the assisted suicide law in Oregon, neither of those had to do with racism.

And if that stands, Bhs, your argument is toast. Whatever the possible abuses of the federal government in a speculated distant future, they cannot compare to all-too-recent flagrant abuses of minorities by states.
No they cannot. The majority of the people who have argued my side have been evil men using it for evil causes. This doesn't change that a people being able to secede is the right thing to do. Don't confuse secession with applying the rights of the constitution to the states as they are very different things.

Secession doesn't become wrong just because the people who wanted it were slave-owners. Don't let your hatred of the people who championed succession make you judge it itself the same way.

[Oberon]

Unless the states forfeited their right to secession.

I'm willing to entertain that suggestion if you can show me where to find it in the Constitution.

Unless someone answers that point, it's going to stand. If it stands, then it will also stand that states' rights is often a tool - indeed, the only tool - used to protect the abuse of minorities from meddling interference by them librals who think darkies should go to the same schools as decent white children, and states' rights are never used in the opposite fashion. And if that stands, Bhs, your argument is toast. Whatever the possible abuses of the federal government in a speculated distant future, they cannot compare to all-too-recent flagrant abuses of minorities by states.

Greater indepedence for states would affect minorities in both directions. Some states, given greater independence, would be free to offer greater rights to its citizens (like marriage for gays, universal healthcare, livable wages, etc) while I'm sure some states would limit minority rights (like abolish affirmative action, minimum wage laws, occupational safety laws, etc). It would be interesting to see which states prospered and which started resembling third world states.

[Andarcel]

The land is owned by the people and the government which is an entity of the people. Of course they get to take it with them.

I see. That being the case, I hereby secede from the US. And lo, I shall never have to pay property taxes again. And, since there's no point in guarding a border of a 1-man country completely surrounded by your own, I'll still be able to come and go as I please. Maybe give up air travel temporarily, but since the US would have no reason not to recognize me as a state - it's following your philosophy, after all - I should shortly have my own special passport. And just think - I can do whatever I want on my own property!

The Slovak part of Czechoslovakia felt that they would be better off as their own country. They held a vote and voted to split from the more powerful Czech half. No bloodshed, no wars, just a people seceding and forming their own country. They managed to take the land they were on too. I re-repeat: the Slovaks never voluntarily entered that union, so it's disanalogous.

Very much so. Not only did the constitution allow them to secede but Lincoln did more unconstitutional acts then any President before or after him. I have no interest in ducking them as proving Lincoln's presidency to be horribly unconstitutional is the easiest point to make in this entire discussion. Constitutional is not always the same as right. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

States rights have been used to argue for medical marijuana, and the assisted suicide law in Oregon, neither of those had to do with racism. Also neither of which has to do with protecting minorities, which is the point I've made twice now in different ways.

No they cannot. The majority of the people who have argued my side have been evil men using it for evil causes. This doesn't change that a people being able to secede is the right thing to do. Don't confuse secession with applying the rights of the constitution to the states as they are very different things.

Secession doesn't become wrong just because the people who wanted it were slave-owners. Don't let your hatred of the people who championed succession make you judge it itself the same way. 1)Secession is wrong insofar as it would have permitted wrong actions.

2)Your central point is that states' rights prevent abuses by the government. If it's actually states that do the abusing, then clearly states' rights serve legitimize evil rather than protecting us from it. Unless you can give a compelling reason why we should pay more heed to some form of federal abuse (still no examples, huh?) that might occur at some point than the very real and evident atrocities that have been committed within the last century, your argument from the standpoint of checks and balances fails. It's not the federal government that needs extra checking by states; rather, the reverse is true.

Where did they do this?

I haven't been able to get ahold of a convenient summary of the conditions of joining the Union for various states, and my heart quails at the research entailed. However, I can tell you that Texas is the only state that reserved the right to secede at any time when it joined. I wish they'd hurry up and use it.

Edit: No, oberon, it's not in the Constitution. Which is why it would have to be states forfeiting it when they joined.

[Andarcel]

I'm willing to entertain that suggestion if you can show me where to find it in the Constitution.



Greater indepedence for states would affect minorities in both directions. Some states, given greater independence, would be free to offer greater rights to its citizens (like marriage for gays, universal healthcare, livable wages, etc) while I'm sure some states would limit minority rights (like abolish affirmative action, minimum wage laws, occupational safety laws, etc). It would be interesting to see which states prospered and which started resembling third world states.
The only minority you're talking about here is gays. How, exactly, would the right to secede from the union help states help them? (Although the question also applies to the other differences among states).

Even if I granted that the right to secession would give rise to movement in both directions, it's quite obvious which direction would overwhelmingly predominate.

[Bhs Crew]

I see. That being the case, I hereby secede from the US. And lo, I shall never have to pay property taxes again. And, since there's no point in guarding a border of a 1-man country completely surrounded by your own, I'll still be able to come and go as I please. Maybe give up air travel temporarily, but since the US would have no reason not to recognize me as a state - it's following your philosophy, after all - I should shortly have my own special passport. And just think - I can do whatever I want on my own property!
That would be quite unwise. You would lose all benefits granted to you by being a citizen. Travel would be hard; you wouldn't be able to vote. Life would become far more expensive for you. The disadvantages would far out way the advantages of such an action. You could do this, yes, just as you could abuse any liberty, but it wouldn’t be smart.

I re-repeat: the Slovaks never voluntarily entered that union, so it's disanalogous.
So if a previous government entered the union voluntarily then you, several generations later, can't secede but if a previous government was forced into a union you can secede?
You can’t sign away the rights of future generations (and you still haven’t proved they did), any more than you can sign away the rights of person in another country.

1)Secession is wrong insofar as it would have permitted wrong actions.
Almost every part of the Bill of rights permits wrong actions. Life permits wrong actions. The whole point of liberty is that it permits actions. Wrong actions are part of that.

2)Your central point is that states' rights prevent abuses by the government. If it's actually states that do the abusing, then clearly states' rights serve legitimize evil rather than protecting us from it. Unless you can give a compelling reason why we should pay more heed to some form of federal abuse (still no examples, huh?) that might occur at some point than the very real and evident atrocities that have been committed within the last century, your argument from the standpoint of checks and balances fails. It's not the federal government that needs extra checking by states; rather, the reverse is true.
My central point is that succession is used as a final measure to allow people who want to, to form their own government. The check is that people can choose to sign out of the union. I'm not saying it's been used often, but the right is still important.

I remember what you said to Eiger about the second amendment. A group of people being able to leave and form their own government, no matter how stupid it may be, is a liberty that doesn't disappear just because some people wanted to leave for reasons that you disagree with. It is not their reasons that are the issue it is the liberty itself.

I'm not talking about states right's abuses, and I already stated that if a state is part of the union it is subject to the constitution, meaning that the people chanting states rights to promote segregation were misusing it, due to the fourteenth amendment.

I haven't been able to get ahold of a convenient summary of the conditions of joining the Union for various states, and my heart quails at the research entailed. However, I can tell you that Texas is the only state that reserved the right to secede at any time when it joined. I wish they'd hurry up and use it.
If that's true then why was Texas forced to return to the Union after the civil war? Texas was the only country to not turn over their state land to the federal government. As to the right of secession, I don't see it written anywhere that the states turned over that right. It would have to be written somewhere for it to work. Otherwise you use the assumption that a person can sign out as they signed it, which is just what the south did.

[Oberon]

The only minority you're talking about here is gays. How, exactly, would the right to secede from the union help states help them? (Although the question also applies to the other differences among states).

Even if I granted that the right to secession would give rise to movement in both directions, it's quite obvious which direction would overwhelmingly predominate.

Actually only the first part - marriage - was specific to gays. Another part - universal healthcare - is, well, universal. The same for a livable wage.

[Glurin]

You're trying to compare two nonanalogous concepts. We are discussing the differences between states within the same country voting for the leader of that country. The President, whose election we've been discussing here, does not govern Canada. Why should you think they should get a vote too? The reason I mentioned the fact that borders are an artificial concept was because you seemed to be anthropomorphizing California and other states. My point was since all Americans are voting for their common leader, all American votes should count the same. Why do you feel Canadians should vote for someone who doesn't govern them?

You can't have it both ways, Oberon. Either these borders exist, or they don't. You say Bush has no authority over Canada, but if these borders don't exist, what is Canada? Why does Bush have no authority over this place?

States have borders for a reason. They are indeed seperate entities within the United States, and each state has seperate values and ideals from any other state. We don't lump them together for the same reason we don't lump together france and germany. They are both in europe, but they are certainly not the same.

Their votes would matter precisely as much as they should matter. There's no reason for the government to value the people of Wyoming more than the people of California.

And there is no reason for the government to allow the people of California to overpower the people of Wyoming. As Bhs Crew said, "The whole point of this republic is that the will of the minority is not trampled by the will of the majority."

Again the smaller states would still have value - a value in direct proportion to their population which is the basis for any republic.

It already is in proportion to their population. Its just that they are also given value as a state among other states, which gives being a republic its value.

Again I bring up the point of other minorities. You remind us we are a diverse nation which is true. In order to give minorities, like blacks for example who have never had one of their kind elected President, more value for their vote? If you believe someone from Wyoming should be counted more than someone from New York because there are fewer Wyomingians (or whatever the f*ck they call themselves) than New Yorkers, then why not apply that same logic to other minorities?

Because this is an election between states decideing the presidency. You get your direct popular vote on a state by state scale.

Again, your missing the point. This is not about valueing "Wyomingians" more than New Yorkers. This is about preventing mob rule.

The problem is our nation has changed significantly since the days of our founding. For the first 150 years of our existence the executive branch was weak while Congress controlled most of the federal government. In the 20th century, and especially since WW2, the executive branch has experienced rapid growth in size and power. Considering how important the position of President has become, making sure the will of the people is accurately discerned by non-biased elections is vital. It's funny that you mention the Senate since it has changed significantly too since its inception. Senators used to be appointed by state governors but during the 19th century that changed to direct elections. IMO it's somewhat rediculous having two bodies which often can't agree on legislation. It seems having one legislative body with elections every 4 years (instead of 2 for the House and 6 for the Senate) would be sufficient.

Accurately discerning the will of the people is EXACTLY what the ellectoral college does. A direct popular vote only reflects popular will. The will of the people includes more than popularity. And as I've already pointed out several times, popular vote is increadably biased. On the different legislative bodies, haven't you ever heard of the concept of checks and ballances? The House and the Senate are supposed to ballance each other out, not simply agree all the time.

[strychnon]

I don't know why people are referring to these presentations as debates. They're staged political party press conferences. The questions are pre-approved by both parties beforehand. Any person asking a non-sanctioned question will be silenced by Jim Liar and escorted out by security. We haven't had presidential debates since Reagan, when candidates were allowed to fire back and forth at each other with questions and retorts.

[Oberon]

You can't have it both ways, Oberon. Either these borders exist, or they don't. You say Bush has no authority over Canada, but if these borders don't exist, what is Canada? Why does Bush have no authority over this place?

I stated that states are "political labels we give to artificial partitions on a map" which do not "objectively exist". To clarify I stated "A Californian however, is a human being who happens to live within that aritificial bounds other human beings have agreed upon to be called "California". That human being should have the same value in an election as another human being in another artifical boundary - like Montana."

Forgive me for not stating the very obvious - that human beings should have the same value in an election as another human being in another artificial boundary when they're voting on their common governance. I assumed inference of that last part since it was common sense but I apparently was mistaken. Another key point of my comment you seem to have missed was that these are "aritificial bounds other human beings have agreed upon". Canadians can't vote for the leader of the US because long ago Americans and Canadians agreed upon the artifical boundary between their peoples and part of that - again to state the obvious - agreement is the leader of one nation doesn't controlled, and isn't elected by, the people of the other nation.

States have borders for a reason. They are indeed seperate entities within the United States, and each state has seperate values and ideals from any other state. We don't lump them together for the same reason we don't lump together france and germany. They are both in europe, but they are certainly not the same.

Again another analogy that lacks all sense but I'll run with it nonetheless. If we did equate the difference between France and Germany with say the difference between California and Nevada, your analogy is equivalent to saying the Germans should vote for the President of France and the Californians should vote for the governor of Nevada. Now if the French are voting for the head of a common government - like the EU - then yes both should get to vote - same with California and Nevada voting for President. What you're suggesting - that Canadians should be able to vote for US President, is akin to letting Californians vote for governor of Nevada.

And there is no reason for the government to allow the people of California to overpower the people of Wyoming. As Bhs Crew said, "The whole point of this republic is that the will of the minority is not trampled by the will of the majority."

Sorry but if this were the case please explain why every President we've ever had was a white male? If you're truly concerned about protecting the rights of minorities why not grant true minorities like blacks, asians, latinos, gays, jews, etc greater voting strength? Otherwise you're being a hypocrite since the only minority you're seeking to protect is the Republican minority.


Accurately discerning the will of the people is EXACTLY what the ellectoral college does. A direct popular vote only reflects popular will. The will of the people includes more than popularity. And as I've already pointed out several times, popular vote is increadably biased.

A popular vote is biased only when you've got a winner-takes-all system like too many states happen to have now. That is something that can, and IMO should, be changed state-by-state as Colorado is looking into now and as Maine has already done. The best way to determine though the will of the people is still a direct popular vote. It will tell you the will of the majority of the people and when it comes to President - since we can only have one person as President - that majority should get their way. The Legislature - being composed of hudreds of people - can reflect the majority and the minorities. In 2000 it was clear the will of the people was for Gore, not Bush, to have been elected. Gore got over 1/2 million more votes than Bush.

[Booms]

Oberon's points have been crystal clear in meaning.

Glurin, if you want your US-Canada analogy to work, it would be like having the Californians (Canadians) vote for the governor (president) of Oregon (the USA).

[Glurin]

What I'm suggesting by saying the borders do exist is that the values of people liveing in minority states HAVE VALUE and that they are indeed seperate entities. What you are suggesting is that its only fair for california to decide who should represent nevada, or for germany to decide who should represent france. But like I said before, the will of the people is more than simple majority rule.

Sorry but if this were the case please explain why every President we've ever had was a white male? If you're truly concerned about protecting the rights of minorities why not grant true minorities like blacks, asians, latinos, gays, jews, etc greater voting strength? Otherwise you're being a hypocrite since the only minority you're seeking to protect is the Republican minority.

The minorities we are discussing are not racial minorities. That is a seperate issue. The minorities in question are community minorities. Differences in values and ideals as they apply to government, not skin color.

A popular vote is biased only when you've got a winner-takes-all system like too many states happen to have now. That is something that can, and IMO should, be changed state-by-state as Colorado is looking into now and as Maine has already done. The best way to determine though the will of the people is still a direct popular vote. It will tell you the will of the majority of the people and when it comes to President - since we can only have one person as President - that majority should get their way. The Legislature - being composed of hudreds of people - can reflect the majority and the minorities. In 2000 it was clear the will of the people was for Gore, not Bush, to have been elected. Gore got over 1/2 million more votes than Bush.

Like I told you before, the electoral college is set up so that the majority usualy does get their way. But its also set up to somewhat ballance out the difference between minority and majority so that one doesn't simply trample the other. On the 2000 election, a .001% lead is NOT a clear indication of the will of the people. I don't care how you try and cut it, thats an increadibly small lead. And besides that, a president doesn't just need a majority vote to effectivly lead the country.

[Oberon]

What I'm suggesting by saying the borders do exist is that the values of people liveing in minority states HAVE VALUE and that they are indeed seperate entities. What you are suggesting is that its only fair for california to decide who should represent nevada, or for germany to decide who should represent france. But like I said before, the will of the people is more than simple majority rule.

I never suggested California should decide who represents Nevada. I have suggested that when both states vote, along with the other 48, for their common leader, that each citizen's vote should count the same. When it comes to governors though, obviously people should only have a say in who is the governor of their state.

The minorities we are discussing are not racial minorities. That is a seperate issue. The minorities in question are community minorities. Differences in values and ideals as they apply to government, not skin color.

Difference races have different values too. The same goes for different religious minorities as well as gays. Why limit it to community minorities? If you're going to be consistent you can't by so myopic in the application of minority election bonuses.

Like I told you before, the electoral college is set up so that the majority usualy does get their way. But its also set up to somewhat ballance out the difference between minority and majority so that one doesn't simply trample the other. On the 2000 election, a .001% lead is NOT a clear indication of the will of the people. I don't care how you try and cut it, thats an increadibly small lead. And besides that, a president doesn't just need a majority vote to effectivly lead the country.

You must not have been keeping track of Bush's record this past few years.

[Andarcel]

Actually only the first part - marriage - was specific to gays. Another part - universal healthcare - is, well, universal. The same for a livable wage.
To start with, my point was that you referred to only one minority in your post, and that was gays. As you so astutely observe, universal healthcare is (surprise!) universal, and therefore not really an instance of a state pushing a human rights issue in the face of federal opposition, now is it? So we're still left with states having a proud history of trampling on human rights until the federal government intervenes.

That would be quite unwise. You would lose all benefits granted to you by being a citizen. Travel would be hard; you wouldn't be able to vote. Life would become far more expensive for you. The disadvantages would far out way the advantages of such an action. You could do this, yes, just as you could abuse any liberty, but it wouldn’t be smart.

Life would, in fact, be quite inexpensive. I already pointed out that travel would be just as easily once you were recognized by the US. Since power grids already cross international borders, your power would be uninterrupted. Basically, all you'd lose would be a vote. A small price to pay for no property taxes in my state. I'm weighing it and seeing a lot to like.

All of which frivolity misses the deeper question of whom actually owns the land. Its ultimate possessor is the US. It's yours on loan, and should a new highway be scheduled through your property, you'll find that out quickly when they call the loan due.

So if a previous government entered the union voluntarily then you, several generations later, can't secede but if a previous government was forced into a union you can secede?
You can’t sign away the rights of future generations (and you still haven’t proved they did), any more than you can sign away the rights of person in another country. When you've done some of your own research, you can harp at me to get on with mine.

As to the second part, following your logic, no treaty could be binding beyond one administration. Political entities make their own treaties, and those entities are bound by those treaties so long as they exist, no matter how many generations pass. You aren't binding your descendents by doing this; they canremove themselves from said entity at any time. If Florideans don't like the Union, they can immigrate.

Almost every part of the Bill of rights permits wrong actions. Life permits wrong actions. The whole point of liberty is that it permits actions. Wrong actions are part of that.

Yes. And civil liberties are all wrong insofar as they permit wrong actions. In all such liberties we have to weigh the intrinsic and circumstantial value of the liberty against its permissiveness and circumstantial harm. States' rights do not do well in this equation. They have no intrinsic value as such, because only people in themselves are moral ends. Their circumstantial value in acting as a protection for people's rights has not been demonstrated to me, and I'm thinking you'll never get around to doing that. Stack that against the fact that they legitimize such abhorrent institutions as slavery (permissiveness) and act to prevent the federal government from rectifying the situation (circumstantial harm).

My central point is that succession is used as a final measure to allow people who want to, to form their own government. The check is that people can choose to sign out of the union. I'm not saying it's been used often, but the right is still important.

I remember what you said to Eiger about the second amendment. A group of people being able to leave and form their own government, no matter how stupid it may be, is a liberty that doesn't disappear just because some people wanted to leave for reasons that you disagree with. It is not their reasons that are the issue it is the liberty itself.

I'm not talking about states right's abuses, and I already stated that if a state is part of the union it is subject to the constitution, meaning that the people chanting states rights to promote segregation were misusing it, due to the fourteenth amendment.See above. I used the same logic in dealing with Eiger.

As near as I can tell you're thinking of section 1 of Amendment XIV

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has no real implications for segregation that I can see. care to expand?

As for not talking about "abuse" of states' rights, if you can somehow demonstrate that such uses past and potential are a not a vital part of any moral examination of states' rights because it was misapplied in those instances, we can move on. If on the other hand you pull an Elorion, I'm simply going to abandon the discussion and probably start some kind of religious thread.

If that's true then why was Texas forced to return to the Union after the civil war? Texas was the only country to not turn over their state land to the federal government. As to the right of secession, I don't see it written anywhere that the states turned over that right. It would have to be written somewhere for it to work. Otherwise you use the assumption that a person can sign out as they signed it, which is just what the south did. Really? When someone signs, say, a truce, I think most people don't take that to mean "until we feel like breaking it." The opposite assumption is the case; unless there is a clause specifying the conditions of a treaty's termination, that treaty is binding in perpetuity.

[Glurin]

I never suggested California should decide who represents Nevada. I have suggested that when both states vote, along with the other 48, for their common leader, that each citizen's vote should count the same. When it comes to governors though, obviously people should only have a say in who is the governor of their state.

And what about each state? Doesn't each state have the right to be equaly represented? They are, after all, seperate governments. Each state is a citizen in and of itself. By ignoring that, your saying whoever is bigger has more value than the smaller citizens. Literaly "might makes right".

Difference races have different values too. The same goes for different religious minorities as well as gays. Why limit it to community minorities? If you're going to be consistent you can't by so myopic in the application of minority election bonuses.

The problem with that argument is that people with similar values and beliefs tend to band together to form different communities. This is a community issue because the issue is about how to govern, not which race is better or which sexual orientation is better or anything else.

You must not have been keeping track of Bush's record this past few years.

What is that supposed to mean? :grrr:



EDIT:

Really? When someone signs, say, a truce, I think most people don't take that to mean "until we feel like breaking it." The opposite assumption is the case; unless there is a clause specifying the conditions of a treaty's termination, that treaty is binding in perpetuity.

Actualy its quite the opposite. A truce is simply an agreement. Nobody has to follow any agreement if they don't want to. Ethicly maybe, but there is nothing beyond that which binds them to that agreement other than what is stated in said agreement.

[Oberon]

And what about each state? Doesn't each state have the right to be equaly represented? They are, after all, seperate governments. Each state is a citizen in and of itself. By ignoring that, your saying whoever is bigger has more value than the smaller citizens. Literaly "might makes right".

No each state doesn't have the right to be equally represented. Again you are anthropomorphizing the state. What is important is the citizen. Do you seriously believe the combined votes of the 501,242 people of Wyoming should have the exact same voting power as the combined votes of the 35,484,453 people of California simply because of geography?!? I'm saying 1 person = 1 vote. You're saying 1 person in California = 1/70th the vote of 1 person in Wyoming. If this is your believe then we can simply agree to disagree and stop the debate here.

What is that supposed to mean? :grrr:

It means Bush is completely incompetent and hasn't effectively led the U.S.

[Glurin]

Thats not what I'm saying at all. Each person is one citizen, but so is each state, since each state is its own government with its own beliefs, and both need to be taken into account. Popular vote alone ignores the small states and haveing one state = one vote ignores the greater population of the large states. I'm saying that we need a ballance between the two for a truely accurate representation of the will of the people.

It means Bush is completely incompetent and hasn't effectively led the U.S.

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. I didn't say that a president will effectively lead the country if he has a significant popular vote and distribution. Just that he needs the two to do it. Are you saying this isn't the case, and that no matter what a president does, he will be effective in running the country with a majority vote at election time, no matter by how much?

[SaroDarksbane]

The city of San Francisco has more people in it that all of Alaska. Should CA as a state make decisions for everyone in other states simply because of their large population? Does someone living in the inner city take into account people living in Wisconsin when they vote?

[Oberon]

This will be my last response in this thread since it is going nowhere. Some of you believe equality between states trumpts equality between citizens. IMO since the state is an artificial construct whereas people are not, equality between people should take priority. I know your opinion and you know mine. We disagree so there's no need to drag this on any further.

[Bhs Crew]

Life would, in fact, be quite inexpensive. I already pointed out that travel would be just as easily once you were recognized by the US. Since power grids already cross international borders, your power would be uninterrupted. Basically, all you'd lose would be a vote. A small price to pay for no property taxes in my state. I'm weighing it and seeing a lot to like.
I think you're not taking a lot into account just to prove your point. It would not be that good for you. They would start charging you out of country rates for your goods, everything would have to go through a customs, you wouldn’t be able to successfully have a family or raise kids, your life would suck.

All of which frivolity misses the deeper question of whom actually owns the land. Its ultimate possessor is the US. It's yours on loan, and should a new highway be scheduled through your property, you'll find that out quickly when they call the loan due.
Privately owned land is owned by a person, the US government can take it from you in the same way it could take your life, but it is still yours.

When you've done some of your own research, you can harp at me to get on with mine.
You said that the states signed away their right but no one can find this place that they did. The absence of signing away a right means that you keep it. You haven't been able to find it because it doesn't exist. I have already found a document that shows they didn't sign away their rights, the constitution.

And yes I've done a fair amount of research on this.

As to the second part, following your logic, no treaty could be binding beyond one administration. Political entities make their own treaties, and those entities are bound by those treaties so long as they exist, no matter how many generations pass. You aren't binding your descendents by doing this; they canremove themselves from said entity at any time. If Florideans don't like the Union, they can immigrate.
Almost every treaty has a clause to pull out. There's not a single thing the government can do that can't be undone by a future generation by the passing of some law. However since the states never signed away their right to leave this doesn't matter.


Yes. And civil liberties are all wrong insofar as they permit wrong actions. In all such liberties we have to weigh the intrinsic and circumstantial value of the liberty against its permissiveness and circumstantial harm. States' rights do not do well in this equation. They have no intrinsic value as such, because only people in themselves are moral ends. Their circumstantial value in acting as a protection for people's rights has not been demonstrated to me, and I'm thinking you'll never get around to doing that. Stack that against the fact that they legitimize such abhorrent institutions as slavery (permissiveness) and act to prevent the federal government from rectifying the situation (circumstantial harm).
Slavery was protected by the constitution of the national government, not the states. It was Congress that allowed slavery and congress that was passing laws about it. Before the Civil War the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was constitutional. Slavery wasn't a states rights problem, it was a national problem.


As near as I can tell you're thinking of section 1 of Amendment XIV

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This has no real implications for segregation that I can see. care to expand?

Yup that’s the fourteenth amendment, just as I said.
Sure the reason Segregation is against the fourteenth amendment is that, as the court ruled, separation by race is inherently unequal. If you prevent a person from attending the same public institution as another you are denying him his equal protection of the laws.

People using the argument of states rights to deny people the same liberty as others are using it incorrectly. As long as their state is part of the United States they are subject to the constitution.

As for not talking about "abuse" of states' rights, if you can somehow demonstrate that such uses past and potential are a not a vital part of any moral examination of states' rights because it was misapplied in those instances, we can move on. If on the other hand you pull an Elorion, I'm simply going to abandon the discussion and probably start some kind of religious thread.
Ok that hurts. You know me well enough and I've always been fair with you. Just because we don’t understand each other doesn't mean I'm trying to move you around in circles. If you showed me to be wrong I would admit it as I've done before. I'm not going to hold on to a view stubbornly after being proved wrong.

Really? When someone signs, say, a truce, I think most people don't take that to mean "until we feel like breaking it." The opposite assumption is the case; unless there is a clause specifying the conditions of a treaty's termination, that treaty is binding in perpetuity.
A truce is a cease fire. A treaty is a mutual agreement in which both parties have the ability to give notice and withdraw. Withdrawing is quite different from breaking it. No treaty lasts forever as it is impossible to pass a law that prevents future generations from passing laws. You couldn’t amend the constitution to forbid amendment until the end of time.

[Andarcel]

Actualy its quite the opposite. A truce is simply an agreement. Nobody has to follow any agreement if they don't want to. Ethicly maybe, but there is nothing beyond that which binds them to that agreement other than what is stated in said agreement. You're beginning with this, so I'll forgive you. In the future, should you confuse an ethical discussion with a discussion about capabilities you'll get nothing but derision.

I think you're not taking a lot into account just to prove your point. It would not be that good for you. They would start charging you out of country rates for your goods, everything would have to go through a customs, you wouldn’t be able to successfully have a family or raise kids, your life would suck. I'm done playing. If I live on the border between Canada and the US, I have no right to switch between countries and redraw the international map. I have found absolutely no thinker who believes otherwise. If you wish to continue to do so, fine. There are people who think stranger things. Doesn't trouble me, and I have no urge to bother pushing the issue further.

Privately owned land is owned by a person, the US government can take it from you in the same way it could take your life, but it is still yours. Wrong. The government cannot take your life except by a principle of forfeiture. It can take your land any time it determines that doing so would be for the greater good.

You said that the states signed away their right but no one can find this place that they did. The absence of signing away a right means that you keep it. You haven't been able to find it because it doesn't exist. I have already found a document that shows they didn't sign away their rights, the constitution. Really? Show me where the Constitution says "no state has signed an agreement to give up the right to secede."

I've spent several hours on this, and found almost nothing either way. So here's a quote from a message board. You decide what the facts in it imply.

""Argento", Texas HAS he right to secede; it was incorporated into the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo (Article 7, Chapter 2 if you want it precisely), and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1845. It permits Texas to secede on 2/3 majority vote of the State Legislature.

Rhode Island, Virginia and New York also have secession clauses in their respective treaties; contrary to what you learned in school, secession is a State's right, freely given by Federal treaty."

Almost every treaty has a clause to pull out. There's not a single thing the government can do that can't be undone by a future generation by the passing of some law. However since the states never signed away their right to leave this doesn't matter. You're really slipping. My point was, in fact, that the right to secede can consist only in such a clause. Those states enumerated above are the only ones reserving that right.

All of which is in general meaningless. The rights of any political body consist only in the right to minister to the rights of its members. Therefore, no state (or country) can be said to have any rights which violate the rights of its citizens. The whole notion of sovereignity is an artificial moral construct that has only existed since the Treaty of Versailles and has already long outlived its usefulness.

Slavery was protected by the constitution of the national government, not the states. It was Congress that allowed slavery and congress that was passing laws about it. Before the Civil War the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was constitutional. Slavery wasn't a states rights problem, it was a national problem. It was a national problem only because the threat of secession paralyzed the North.

Sure the reason Segregation is against the fourteenth amendment is that, as the court ruled, separation by race is inherently unequal. If you prevent a person from attending the same public institution as another you are denying him his equal protection of the laws. Except that, for you, the Constitution is optional. You would support Alabama seceding expressly for the purpose of evading constitutional protections. Try again.

Ok that hurts. You know me well enough and I've always been fair with you. Just because we don’t understand each other doesn't mean I'm trying to move you around in circles. If you showed me to be wrong I would admit it as I've done before. I'm not going to hold on to a view stubbornly after being proved wrong. No, I don't think I do know you better than that. Five times now I've observed that states' rights act to violate individual rights rather than preserve them, and five times you've weaseled one way or another. Heck, I even offered a rational you could try to pursue without having to resort to any facts whatsoever.

I'm done with this discussion. Have fun.

[Havard]

I'm done with this discussion. Have fun.

Oh good, maybe you'll have time to post in your guild form now. :uhhuh:

[Bhs Crew]

""Argento", Texas HAS he right to secede; it was incorporated into the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo (Article 7, Chapter 2 if you want it precisely), and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1845. It permits Texas to secede on 2/3 majority vote of the State Legislature.

Rhode Island, Virginia and New York also have secession clauses in their respective treaties; contrary to what you learned in school, secession is a State's right, freely given by Federal treaty."
If this was true then why were Texas and Virginia forced back into the Union after the civil war?

Except that, for you, the Constitution is optional. You would support Alabama seceding expressly for the purpose of evading constitutional protections. Try again.
But if they did secede they would lose all the benefits of being in the country. As long as they are here they have to follow the constitution so they are forced, if they want to remain part of the US, to not deny a person equal protection under the laws.
Therefore a person who uses the states rights argument to deny a person equal rights while that state remains part of the US is abusing the states rights argument.

No, I don't think I do know you better than that. Five times now I've observed that states' rights act to violate individual rights rather than preserve them, and five times you've weaseled one way or another. Heck, I even offered a rational you could try to pursue without having to resort to any facts whatsoever.
I've tried to answer your question several times and each time you don't understand what I'm trying to say. Instead of getting angry and accusing you of being a stubborn idiot I'm trying to find an understanding. I wish you would do the same.

I'm done with this discussion. Have fun.
Well I'm sorry for that. I'd prefer you have the patience to continue and not assume I'm trying to stubbornly redirect you, just because we are having some misunderstanding. I'm trying to discuss this, you're the one who's getting angry and leaving.

[Glurin]

This will be my last response in this thread since it is going nowhere. Some of you believe equality between states trumpts equality between citizens. IMO since the state is an artificial construct whereas people are not, equality between people should take priority. I know your opinion and you know mine. We disagree so there's no need to drag this on any further.

Thats not it at all Oberon. Equality between states doesn't trump equality between citizens, but neither does equality between citizens trump equality between states. You can disagree with me all you want, but you should at least know what your disagreeing with.

You're beginning with this, so I'll forgive you. In the future, should you confuse an ethical discussion with a discussion about capabilities you'll get nothing but derision.

What confusion? A truce or treaty is exactly what I said it is. An agreement between parties. Other than what is stated in that agreement, there is preaty much nothing other than moral obligation binding them to it.

[Bhs Crew]

Andarcel, we are coming from very different perspectives on this issue, so it would follow that we wouldn't reach any kind of quick consensus. It would make sense that there would be some misunderstanding on both sides, and that each person would think the other was insane or stupid, as the last time this came up nationally there was a civil war over it.

We're going to have lots of conversations in the future, just as we have in the past, but it doesn't exactly make me overjoyed if I can expect that every time we have a misunderstanding you're going to compare me to your least favorite poster (though maybe that's me now) and then abandon the discussion.

You're a rational man and I want to see what we can do to finish our discussion. At the very least I don't want it to end like it did.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lol what a bunch of rhetoric :p. Andarcel cares only about the argument itself, not emotional appeals.

[Bhs Crew]

lol what a bunch of rhetoric :p. Andarcel cares only about the argument itself, not emotional appeals.
Well then he should stick with that argument and not leave in frustration because of a misunderstanding.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Usually when people arrive at an impasse, they either duke it out, or run away from each other. I can't really describe him as someone who simply runs off in the middle of an argument. In fact, he's probably one of the few people who keeps going with an argument until it's resolved. If he left, it was probably because there was no point in continuing - it was going nowhere.

[Bhs Crew]

Usually when people arrive at an impasse, they either duke it out, or run away from each other. I can't really describe him as someone who simply runs off in the middle of an argument. In fact, he's probably one of the few people who keeps going with an argument until it's resolved.
Exactly, that's why I was so shocked when he did that.

If he left, it was probably because there was no point in continuing - it was going nowhere.
I know he thought it was going nowhere but that was only because each of us was using different assumptions. As we worked those out in each post, we were actually making progress. I guess it wasn't fast enough for him, and he thought I was trying to evade his questions.

I wasn't, I was doing my best to answer them but it takes a while to work things out as we look at the world in very different ways. Each time I answered and he replied I found new differences in the assumptions that each of us was using, and so each time I tried to explain my answers in ways that he could understand. It was also taking me a while to understand what he was asking for the same reason.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I wasn't, I was doing my best to answer them but it takes a while to work things out as we look at the world in very different ways. Each time I answered and he replied I found new differences in the assumptions that each of us was using, and so each time I tried to explain my answers in ways that he could understand. It was also taking me a while to understand what he was asking for the same reason.

An interesting twist.. THis is why I insist on philosophical discussion as a precursor to politics. I don't bother posting in those bush/kerry threads, because it's basically a bunch of lunatics in bumper-cars airing their opinions, spouting the occasional flame, and leaving. Futile.

[Bhs Crew]

Andarcel, I'd like to try again from this point. I'm not trying to weasel my way out, nor is it my intention to stubbornly stick to my own views. We have different understandings of the world, and I would like to be able to see your view here. As long as you are willing to keep with this discussion we can work something out. These forums aren't going anywhere soon; we have all the time in the world to understand each other.
I'm done playing. If I live on the border between Canada and the US, I have no right to switch between countries and redraw the international map.
Where I'm coming from is the belief that ultimately the government is the property of the people, is made by them, and can be changed by them. Ideally we don't serve the government, it serves us. The border is just the line where two groups of people have decided to make their governments in two different ways. If a person wants to leave one, and the other group doesn't mind having him, he should be able to do so.

As the government belongs to the people, the land is ultimately owned by them as well. If a person wants to leave with the land he owns then that should be his choice.

Wrong. The government cannot take your life except by a principle of forfeiture. It can take your land any time it determines that doing so would be for the greater good.
The government can take your life whenever you do an action that violates a law where the punishment is to take your life. What matters is if the people in the jury believe you are innocent or not.

By that same token you can lose your property if the people of an area decide that they want to build something on your land. They can't just take the property though; they have to give you the monetary value of that property, presumably so you can buy another piece of land just like it somewhere else.

""Argento", Texas HAS he right to secede; it was incorporated into the Treaty of Guadelupe-Hidalgo (Article 7, Chapter 2 if you want it precisely), and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1845. It permits Texas to secede on 2/3 majority vote of the State Legislature.

Rhode Island, Virginia and New York also have secession clauses in their respective treaties; contrary to what you learned in school, secession is a State's right, freely given by Federal treaty."

You're really slipping. My point was, in fact, that the right to secede can consist only in such a clause. Those states enumerated above are the only ones reserving that right.
If what you say is true, and if the federal government in the civil war was following those rules, then they should have allowed Texas and Virginia to secede. Instead they invaded both, burned the capital of Virginia to the ground, and forced both back into the Union at gunpoint. This would mean the federal government was overstepping its bounds and those two states should have been allowed to secede.

You still believe a contract is eternal unless it says otherwise and I believe that everything can be changed in some manner.
I can tell you that many states believed they had the right to leave the union if they wished to, as there was no part of the constitution forbidding it. Obviously other states believed they couldn't; hence the war.

All of which is in general meaningless. The rights of any political body consist only in the right to minister to the rights of its members. Therefore, no state (or country) can be said to have any rights which violate the rights of its citizens. The whole notion of sovereignity is an artificial moral construct that has only existed since the Treaty of Versailles and has already long outlived its usefulness.
So if no state or country has any rights of its own other than to protect the rights of its members, shouldn't a group of people be allowed to take their land and form a new political body if they wish so?

Except that, for you, the Constitution is optional. You would support Alabama seceding expressly for the purpose of evading constitutional protections. Try again.
But if they did secede they would lose all the benefits of being in the country. As long as they are here they have to follow the constitution so they are forced, if they want to remain part of the US, to not deny a person equal protection under the laws.
Therefore a person who uses the states rights argument to deny a person equal rights while that state remains part of the US is abusing the states rights argument.

No, I don't think I do know you better than that. Five times now I've observed that states' rights act to violate individual rights rather than preserve them, and five times you've weaseled one way or another.
And several times I've answered your questions. We still don’t understand each other fully, but I'm trying again above.

I hope you'll be willing to check this periodically and comment. Eventually we'll be able to come to an understanding if we both are willing to stick with the conversation. It may take a while as we are coming from very different view points and often don't understand the meaning behind the other's words, but we are getting closer the longer we discuss this.

[Andarcel]

you're going to compare me to your least favorite poster (though maybe that's me now) Oh, the pathos :rolleyes:. That's about all the reply I'm giving that.

Instead of getting angry and accusing you of being a stubborn idiot I'm trying to find an understanding. I wish you would do the same.

I accused you of being a stubborn idiot?

I'm trying to discuss this, you're the one who's getting angry and leaving. My, everyone seems to be going through a phase of thinking I'm angry. When I've been angry, has there ever been any doubt about it? I'm not exactly careful to keep it hidden. Then again, you weren't here for my reply to Cale when he told me I knew nothing of war because I didn't think 20,000 lives of American soldiers were worth the lives of 500,000 Japanese civilians.

The word, Bhs, is bored. Chasing my tail is interesting only for so long. But perhaps you aren't aquainted with contract theory, so I will try to do this one more time, very carefully.

One word about assumptions: for me, the word has a very specific meaning, to wit: "factual beliefs that are rationally unsupported." If you mean premises or definitions, use those words instead please.

Where I'm coming from is the belief that ultimately the government is the property of the people, is made by them, and can be changed by them. Ideally we don't serve the government, it serves us. The border is just the line where two groups of people have decided to make their governments in two different ways. If a person wants to leave one, and the other group doesn't mind having him, he should be able to do so.

As the government belongs to the people, the land is ultimately owned by them as well. If a person wants to leave with the land he owns then that should be his choice. The sovereignity - here used to refer to a state's internal authority, not its claims on other states - of a state is much more complicated than you would have it be. For a fuller discussion of this, see Rousseau. For now, it will be sufficient to articulate the following principles. Also note: state here refers to a general political body, not a member of the US.

1)The will of the state is not the sum of the wills of its members. The majority of people desire to have fulfilling relationships but this does not mean that the sovereign wants fulfilling relationships or has the authority to create them.

2)The state has authority only in ministering to civil rights, as I said. All rights emerge from the forfeiture of liberties. Your right to property consists in everyone forefeiting the liberty to steal. The sovereign enforces the agreement not to exercise these liberties. (This is why I hit Eiger for confusing rights and liberties, which clearly went right over his head).

3)The liberty to own land in the sense that I own a fork has been given up in our system, in exchange for the right to such things as highways and decent-looking neighborhoods. In these instances, the country and local communities have democratically decided that the public interest should outweigh the private interest. The private interest of a citizen in taking his land with him to Canada is squashed by the public interest in keeping that land in the system.

Now, a system of rights may be called immoral. That is, one could set up a sovereign who, responsive to the general will of the people, practices genocide. If you want to find a way to apply this to land, be my guest.

You do not distinguish between the interests of the majority, the interests of the individual, the rights of the majority, and the rights fot the individual. These things are in conflict in the case of transferring land to Canada. Therefore, your argument on that point is incoherent.

So if no state or country has any rights of its own other than to protect the rights of its members, shouldn't a group of people be allowed to take their land and form a new political body if they wish so? See above, substituting "minority" for "individual."

The government can take your life whenever you do an action that violates a law where the punishment is to take your life. What matters is if the people in the jury believe you are innocent or not.

By that same token you can lose your property if the people of an area decide that they want to build something on your land. They can't just take the property though; they have to give you the monetary value of that property, presumably so you can buy another piece of land just like it somewhere else.

They have to reimburse you because you do have partial rights of ownership, usually delineated precisely by zoning laws and the like. But the land is not fully yours to do with as you will.

The right to life, on the other hand, is unequivocally yours, provided only you do not violate that right in others or violate some other right held to be equally important.

If what you say is true, and if the federal government in the civil war was following those rules, then they should have allowed Texas and Virginia to secede. Instead they invaded both, burned the capital of Virginia to the ground, and forced both back into the Union at gunpoint. This would mean the federal government was overstepping its bounds and those two states should have been allowed to secede.

You still believe a contract is eternal unless it says otherwise and I believe that everything can be changed in some manner.
I can tell you that many states believed they had the right to leave the union if they wished to, as there was no part of the constitution forbidding it. Obviously other states believed they couldn't; hence the war.

First, the Constitution. States could secede under the Constitution. Therefore, they were, constitutionally speaking, different countries when they did. In other words, all the Constitution required to make war on them was the declaration of Congress. The reason for making that war was a breach of treaty. The reason Texas and Virginia were included in that war was their alliance with the enemies of the United States, those states that had breached their treaties. In fact, one could argue that they were members of a new enemy of the United States.

But if they did secede they would lose all the benefits of being in the country. As long as they are here they have to follow the constitution so they are forced, if they want to remain part of the US, to not deny a person equal protection under the laws.
Therefore a person who uses the states rights argument to deny a person equal rights while that state remains part of the US is abusing the states rights argument. Only so long as the state does not maintain the right to secede. My example quite clearly supposes that it does. If you're arguing that states would never exercise this right, then your philosophy has no impact. Also, I think you would be wrong on that score. When you have to use troops to force a state to integrate, I think it would probably have seceded given the opportunity.

In any case it does not address the moral element of the equation which is what I was talking about. Whether or not a state exercises a right is irrelevant to whether the state ought to exercise that right. If the state ought not to exercise a right, then it doesn't have that right, although it may have the liberty. Individuals may have rights that they ought not to exercise, such as using freedom of speech for hate groups. Governments do not. Insofar as a government is immoral, it is wrong.

And several times I've answered your questions. We still don’t understand each other fully, but I'm trying again above. The only question in whether a state has the moral - not civil - right to secede rests on whether doing so will better preserve the rights of its members. The question of whether such a right ought to be codified into law, that is, made a civil right, can only be answered by asking whether such a law would more likely act to preserve rights - act in a moral fashion - or deny them. The evidence of history is pretty clear on this point. Since it is really the only relevant point, your silence on the issue means that the conversation can never progress.

[Bhs Crew]

My, everyone seems to be going through a phase of thinking I'm angry. When I've been angry, has there ever been any doubt about it? I'm not exactly careful to keep it hidden.
It must be either your tone or your avatar. Can't say for sure, but your posts often seem angry.

The only question in whether a state has the moral - not civil - right to secede rests on whether doing so will better preserve the rights of its members. The question of whether such a right ought to be codified into law, that is, made a civil right, can only be answered by asking whether such a law would more likely act to preserve rights - act in a moral fashion - or deny them. The evidence of history is pretty clear on this point. Since it is really the only relevant point, your silence on the issue means that the conversation can never progress.
Well since there only has been one instance of secession in this country, it would seem that history does support you. It's only one case though so it doesn't mean much. I would still argue that allowing people to vote to secede is important, but we're most likely never going to come to an agreement on that one.

First, the Constitution. States could secede under the Constitution. Therefore, they were, constitutionally speaking, different countries when they did. In other words, all the Constitution required to make war on them was the declaration of Congress. The reason for making that war was a breach of treaty. The reason Texas and Virginia were included in that war was their alliance with the enemies of the United States, those states that had breached their treaties. In fact, one could argue that they were members of a new enemy of the United States.
Well I guess what this comes down to is we're not going to agree on whether the constitution allowed states to leave. I can tell you that if the south had known the north would claim that they had no right to leave, they never would have signed it in the first place.
As to what the constitution says, it all depends on what you assume the default to be.

As these are the two main issues and we have no way to resolve either, I guess you were right. This conversation is going to go anywhere. Oh well thanks for trying.

[Andarcel]

No, you don't get off so easy on that. There are several cases of threatened secession - New England states, for example, voer the war of 1812 because it was cutting into their profits. In each case I can find, the threat to secede is used as a cynical ploy by the state's elite.

If you expand it still further as I've already done to include cases of significant conflict between the federal government and states, you have still more samples.

I've also asked you several times for an example of how the federal government might behave that would warrant secession. My intent was to show that in such extreme cases it would be the duty of all citizens to depose the government. But you never even attempted this argument for your side.

This would be one of those times where you should provide something as a counterargument or change your beliefs.

[Bhs Crew]

No, you don't get off so easy on that. There are several cases of threatened secession - New England states, for example, voer the war of 1812 because it was cutting into their profits. In each case I can find, the threat to secede is used as a cynical ploy by the state's elite.
Well the war of 1812 can be viewed as a bad war in many respects. It was mostly caused by our strong desire to invade and annex Canada and our greed almost cost us the country. There are worse reasons to secede then being unwilling to pay for a war they don't believe in.

If you expand it still further as I've already done to include cases of significant conflict between the federal government and states, you have still more samples.
Well the only one you gave that I saw was the civil rights issues and I already pointed out that the states were not protected in denying people equal rights, and protection of the law. If they're part of the country they have to follow the constitution. As long as they want the vast economic benefits of remaining in the country they would have to follow the bill of rights, which applied to the states because of the 14th amendment.

I've also asked you several times for an example of how the federal government might behave that would warrant secession. My intent was to show that in such extreme cases it would be the duty of all citizens to depose the government. But you never even attempted this argument for your side.
Very well. Things that could warrant a state to secede would be laws passed where the majority of the states decide that they can get away with shafting a particular state or group of states. One thing the south was very concerned of before the civil war and it was a major reason for secession, was that the country was proposing tariffs and taxes that only hurt the southern economy and using them to support public works projects in the north.

Even without slavery it would've made sense for the south to secede, because massive taxes were being leveled that almost entirely affected them (which are unconstitutional). One of the main reasons they feared Lincoln and the Republican Party (in addition to any concerns about slavery) was that the Republicans were made up of many ex-Whigs. They promised in their platform that they would vastly increase tariffs on goods going that primarily were bought or sold in the south, to pay for all kinds of public works projects in the north.

That is a damn good reason to secede.

[Andarcel]

:clap: There we go. I don't have the time or energy to begin replying right now, but this is what I was looking for.

[Bhs Crew]

:clap: There we go. I don't have the time or energy to begin replying right now, but this is what I was looking for.
See if we go at it long enough we'll eventually speak the same language. I would've answered those questions earlier but I didn't understand that's what you were asking. Hehehe.

[Elevander]

Why would anyone vote for Kerry after this. Did anyone else hear Kerry say that if handicapped people vote for Kerry, they will be able to walk again. Also, and this is news to me, 50% of adult Black males in New York are unemployed.

Ok, the first one is just crap, but the second one was actually an attempt at a fact.

Total ********.

[Bhs Crew]

Why would anyone vote for Kerry after this. Did anyone else hear Kerry say that if handicapped people vote for Kerry, they will be able to walk again. Also, and this is news to me, 50% of adult Black males in New York are unemployed.

Ok, the first one is just crap, but the second one was actually an attempt at a fact.

Total ********.
I think you want the the thread titled "Last Presidental debate." this one has moved on to other things.

[Andarcel]

Well the war of 1812 can be viewed as a bad war in many respects. It was mostly caused by our strong desire to invade and annex Canada and our greed almost cost us the country. There are worse reasons to secede then being unwilling to pay for a war they don't believe in. Not quite so simple (the brits had actually forcibly impressed American soldiers into their navy and were blockading our shipping) but I concede the point.

Well the only one you gave that I saw was the civil rights issues and I already pointed out that the states were not protected in denying people equal rights, and protection of the law. If they're part of the country they have to follow the constitution. As long as they want the vast economic benefits of remaining in the country they would have to follow the bill of rights, which applied to the states because of the 14th amendment. But it's been clear that states are willing to forego those advantages. Not today, of course, but that's because our country is so interdependent that only a few states, like California, could get away with it. That interdependence is predicated on Reconstruction and a philosophy that forbids secesssion.

Very well. Things that could warrant a state to secede would be laws passed where the majority of the states decide that they can get away with shafting a particular state or group of states. One thing the south was very concerned of before the civil war and it was a major reason for secession, was that the country was proposing tariffs and taxes that only hurt the southern economy and using them to support public works projects in the north.

Even without slavery it would've made sense for the south to secede, because massive taxes were being leveled that almost entirely affected them (which are unconstitutional). One of the main reasons they feared Lincoln and the Republican Party (in addition to any concerns about slavery) was that the Republicans were made up of many ex-Whigs. They promised in their platform that they would vastly increase tariffs on goods going that primarily were bought or sold in the south, to pay for all kinds of public works projects in the north. This seems like a gross mischaracterization to me. You decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War#The_panic_of_1857_and_sectional_realignments

[Booms]

I had this written up. I had to post it.
-BC

Well you can get a pretty good idea of what the conflict was over by looking
at the differences between the constitution of the United States and that of
the Confederate States. The main differences are in the limits on congress
section so here those are.

The first ones deal with slavery (except for 3, which is just a habeas
corpus one similar to the US) which one would expect as that was a conflict.
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country
other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of
America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as
shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves
from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this
Confederacy.
4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the
right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The odd things is that 1 and 2 are limiting slavery. Slaves can only come
from inside the CSA or from the USA. Even then congress can later pass laws
forbidding slaves from the USA. The other half is that congress can not
forbid slaves moving around in the CSA from one state to another, and they
cannot forbid slavery. The only other mention of slavery in the constitution
is a note at the end making sure all new states would allow slavery.

Then come the economic ones. All deal with things the federal government of
the USA were doing that the south wanted to make sure didn’t happen in the
CSA.

5. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to
the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
6. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except
by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
7. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to
the ports of one State over those of another.
8. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of
appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the
receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time
to time.
9. Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of
two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and
estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to
Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and
contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States,
the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for
the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made
the duty of Congress to establish.
10. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the
exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made;
and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor,
officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such
service rendered.

Here they have five amendments all making sure what happened in the US
wouldn’t happen in the CS.
5-7 make sure congress can’t tax one population over another, can’t impose
any terrifs on exported goods (without a two-thirds vote, which is hard to
get), and can’t regulate the ports of one area differently than another.
8-10 heavily control Congress’ ability to spend money. They wanted to make
sure it would be very hard for the federal government to spend money, as
that would make sure the states were the primary means of getting things
done.

The rest of the constitution is pretty much the same as the US one at that
time (including the amendments). The president is a little more controlled
but that’s about all I could see.
Here’s a copy of the full CSA constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

My point in all this is that while slavery was one of their three main
issues, it wasn’t the only one. The other two things they deal with are
making sure each area is equally taxed, and making sure the federal
government remains small by restricting Congress’ abiliy to spend money.

The main reason they were seceding was that the United States they were part
of had become very different from the country they had joined. It had goten
to the point where they figured the best solution was for them to leave and
form the type of country they wanted. They thought the North would be happy
to get rid of them. Much of the north was fine with it, and actually the
President before Lincoln did his best to make a clean break. As much as he
didn’t want some states to secede he didn’t see any reason to go to war over
it.

If slavery had existed it might have delayed secession but it still most
likely would have happened. The north and the south just had two very
different ideas of what a country should be. It is noteworthy that after the
civil war Lincoln’s party had almost total control of congress until when
the populists gained power in the early 1900’s. It seemed the south was
justified to fear that party’s economic policies as this time period
(1865-1900, give or take) is usually considered one of the most corrupt in
American politics, and marks the closest this country has come to large
corporations literally running the government.