The offending states are all run by liberal politicians, and some are declaring themselves to be "sanctuary" states. California is the worst offender, threatening to jail anyone who cooperates with federal law officials, attempting to negotiate treaties with foreign governments, intending to take corporate money gained as a result of the new tax changes.
The "New California" movement may be irrelevant if the President declares California to be an insurrectionist state. The law that then comes into effect allows him to disband the state government and institute martial law until a law abiding state government is in place. Congress can do nothing to stop the President in this, and the courts are not allowed to intervene. Only President Lincoln has ever used the Insurrection Act, in force since 1807.
At first, I wondered what that meant. Was it to be shoveling dirt into trucks and trucking the dirt away with them? Now it appears to be splitting off the state, as was done in 1863 with West Virginia. Well, it might work. I am not a Californian; I spent a few months in San Diego on ACDUTRA, but that's about it.
ITS TIME for the USA to become two nations- separated by ideologh. The "classic" USA with its constitutional values, and the "progressive" USA with its liberal values. Let each one fend for itself and float on its own merits. Maybe split right down the middle to give each side an equal chance, or maybe even split horiontally into northern and southern sections. It would be difficult to do at this point, so probably wont happen except by force.
I would be interested in seeing the archipelago map overlaid with population centers. Where there is high population, there are many thing including navigable waters and concentrations of Democrat voters. We cannot divorce every population center from the rest of that state, can we?
Yes, its obvious that the archipelago overlays the large metro areas that are centers of liberal self-sacrificial political correctness. (Zoom in to read the labels that make it clear;^)
How about disbanding the federal government, and letting each state float on its own? No state's laws would have effect in any other state. Each state could be its own country and compete with the rest. I say all the states would be better off, as the progressive ones would take the "venezuelan" path and would soon learn that collectivism doesnt work and there is no one to bail them out.
Sounds like Europe...hasn't worked out so well there... But we could leave each state to it's own devices and have a federal government for protection only...oh wait...that's what the constitution was all about...laughting
EUROPE did the EU thing however. BUT, I do get your point- all the states could be collectivist if the people leaned that way. The constitution had some flaws which took a long time to be apparent. Lack of sanctity of private property was one of the big ones. Should have been "live, liberty, and property"- instaad of "happiness".
Apparently, it was necessary to leave that out to avoid sanctioning slavery. Too bad they didn't just abolish slavery right away.--But then, maybe it wouldn't have been ratified.
I hope not. We are already overstated. In order to accomodate the vast variety of states, and still maintain a coherent pattern of freedom is an impossible task as-is. Adding more states will only complicate the problem.We must stop making claim to parts of the Carribean as well as Samoa and the Phillipines.
Herb, I'm in agreement that we have enough states, now. Rather, let the liberal portion of those states split off into separate Socialist countries. They're half way there, now...
The "New California" movement may be irrelevant if the President declares California to be an insurrectionist state. The law that then comes into effect allows him to disband the state government and institute martial law until a law abiding state government is in place. Congress can do nothing to stop the President in this, and the courts are not allowed to intervene. Only President Lincoln has ever used the Insurrection Act, in force since 1807.
Laughing...
(Zoom in to read the labels that make it clear;^)
But we could leave each state to it's own devices and have a federal government for protection only...oh wait...that's what the constitution was all about...laughting
The constitution had some flaws which took a long time to be apparent. Lack of sanctity of private property was one of the big ones. Should have been "live, liberty, and property"- instaad of "happiness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffers...
In order to accomodate the vast variety of states, and still maintain a coherent pattern of freedom is an impossible task as-is. Adding more states will only complicate the problem.We must stop making claim to parts of the Carribean as well as Samoa and the Phillipines.
I'm in agreement that we have enough states, now. Rather, let the liberal portion of those states split off into separate Socialist countries. They're half way there, now...