I think i'm onto something here

The bill of rights doesn't create law, the bill of rights was added to the rest of the constitution(which prescribes what laws congress can make) to fully make the public know that congress would make no law against basic human rights listed.

Most power still lays in towns and states, most of the laws that affect the daily lives of Americans take place at the state and town level.

 

That's the idea... Law should be created almost exclusively on a local level...

There would be other benefits, it would finally create a situation where large corporations would be forced to play in a similar park if not same field as small business.

Would almost certainly lead to a major decline in foreign trade, which would be great for the economy.

We would probably become a "neutral" country, (let the British become the world police again) We can send a couple token soldiers for UN piece things and otherwise stay the well out of everyone business,

The benefits of keeping the tax money closer to its home (where it belongs) would be great and many...

 

In short... United we stand or united we fall... We are forced to agree or go down trying..
Decentralization is the closest thing that would be constitutionally acceptable.. Assuming you are a constitutional fundamentalist..
This is actually what I hijacked this thread into.... (sorry)

I am arguing the position of turning this country into the "Coalition of independent (or semi-independent) communities of America" (or something like that) Just stealthily disguised.. (as not to come off too radical)

The biggest problem is that you would have to relegate congress exclusively to issues of National infrastructure/trade, military and foreign policy.. Handing over all other power to local governments..(which just isnt going to happen easily or smoothly)

 

Are you suggesting that each local government should be responsible for the interstate and other national highways, in their jurisdiction, that cross the nation? I know my county can't even afford road signs right now let alone the equipment to build the part of I20 that runs through here. If we can't afford it, should we just leave it out of the highway system? What if someone goes to the hospital in an emergency and runs up a $200k bill, again, the county or town's responsibility? My county doesn't have the money to feed the 1 in 5 people who are out of work right now either, should we let them starve to death?

What about civil rights? If the majority in a small town wants to hang blacks is that OK? Can the majority in your county declare that women should be paid half of the rate men are paid?

No laws about interstate kidnapping, immigration, extradition, corporate corruption, corrupt local politicians, no FBI, no anti terrorism agencies, no protections from drugs that kill rather than heal, no controls on eggs that make consumers sick, no educational requirements, etccccccc ?????????

That's the way it is now, and has been consistently enforced by the Supreme court.

.

 

I am suggesting that towns will spend their money where they feel its needed..
National infrastructure should be in the hands of congress as well as foreign policy (National security)

Hanging blacks ... (insert derogatory statement implying inappropriate sexual conduct with children) Has always been against basic human rights and unconstitutional.. (You have to stop beating that horse... its dead dude, we killed it several times over)

The first 10 amendments cover most your examples (falls within federal law) otherwise can be dealt with on the local level... I don't think people will loose their desire for intellectual enlightenment (what community would deny that as a whole?) Part of the ideal of a localized government is a localized economy. (knowing where your eggs come from)..

International policy would as it should be the responsibility of congress..

P.S. I am loving the Special Agent Smith Avatar (its totally working for me in the context of this debate)
If only I could find Neo....

 

I did a little research on a state's right to secede from the Union. For some reason I was always under the impression that it was a guaranteed right, but I think thats just something that is mistakenly believed by many americans when there's really no truth to it...I probably should have verified that before I opened my mouth.

This is what I found: in a Supreme Court decision in Texas vs White 1869, the Supreme Court determined that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the Union could a state leave the Union. http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q65.html

Interesting...this decision basically says a state does have the right to leave the union either through violent revolution or non violent diplomacy. Of course, a revolution would be squashed in no time, and the united states would never allow for a state to leave through diplomatic means. So while theoretically its legal and possible, in practice it will never happen.

The date of this decision is also interesting to me. This came after South Carolina seceded from the Union. I was always under the impression, because I believed the constitution guaranteed the right to secede, that the Civil War was an unconstitutional war. This changes my perspective of history a bit.

 

There's another way to look at the Constitution that might give one more understanding of it. It is a contract between the government and it's citizens. In return for specific duties (obeying laws), the citizen receives a guarantee of specific liberties. As with any contract, it is perfectly acceptable to alter parts of the agreement from time to time, as necessary or desirable, and agreeable to both parties; ie, 27 Amendments and countless other agreements over the years.

.

 

I am finding alot of information about the sale of bonds and honoring them, but haven't found anything that basically says a state does have the right to leave the union either through violent revolution or non violent diplomacy. (perhaps a different link could be provided to your source information?)

What i read seems to say that since Texas first joined the union it continued and constantly remained part of the union..

I don't think anyone has or will ever gain recognition from the U.S. as successfully seceded..

 

When they say revolution I'm willing to bet they mean if the United States federal government falls to revolution and leaves the constitution null and void since it would not be a representative government.

 

This is a powerful bit of propaganda the the Oath Keepers use to recruit military, Veterans and wannabes. The entire oath states:

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

.

 

Sorry I edited that post and got on the Texas v. White thing.. Didn't realize anyone had even payed the earlier post any mind..

The Oath Takers do have a nice sales pitch on the surface. Maybe because I remember taking the oath of service (over a decade ago now.. Man am i getting old). But if they are repressing people and/or advocating violence they are just as wrong as the militant skinheads before them...

It sucks that people so often take a good idea and pervert it?

Is there really such a thing as Military wannabees? That seems ridicules in the scope of how easy it is to become a soldier.. Assuming they are under 35 have a high school education and no serious health problems anyone could be a soldier in just a matter of months...