It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defunding the US Federal Government

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I dont know if this is possible or not but the other day it hit me like a ton of bricks. How can the power be returned to the people? The united states is too large and has too many 'figure' heads for us to make a difference unless a majority of us band together to change it. Even that doesnt seem to work as 2/3 of Americans disapprove of the Iraq war yet we are still there and still seeking funding. Our mission over there has gone from hunting down nukes to terroritsts to stabalization? I didnt sign on to the stabalization plan.

My point here is what if the federal government no longer existed. How could we accomplish that?? My idea is that states pull out of the United states and become independant again. The states could then charge higher taxes to cover the federal income tax charged and redistributed by the federal budget. States would operate independently under there own conditions, constitutions, and bylaws. By doing this it would be easier for people to get involved in the majority on a smaller state scale. It would get rid of all the federal headaches that are plauging this country.

Is this idea probable? How could states be convinced to withdraw from the United States? With this approach a revolution wouldnt be needed as the federal government would no longer have control over individual states and citizens of that state. Just an idea.




posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by gottr
 


I'll set aside the fallacy that your idea wouldn't require a revolution...it's the very essence of a revolution. and it's already been tried. You can ask South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Arkansas, Texas and Tennessee how well it worked. Assuming that your mass secession didn't provoke the response that one did, you still have to settle a few things:

Money. Who prints / mints it, what backs it, and what are the interstate exchange rates? We can't use "US" dollars, since those are backed by Federal Treasury Bonds...so, what do we use, and what's my Arizona 'dollar' worth in Nevada?

Common Causes. If all fifty former states are quasi-independent, who pays for the Army / Navy / Air Force / Marine Corps / Coast Guard? Do individual states form their own militias? For the non-military minded, who pays for the Interstate Highway System? What about multi-state projects like the Hoover Dam and its associated water management?

I could keep going, but those little questions should be enough to get an interesting discussion going.

Now, let's assume that you find answers to all of those, and to various other social and economic pitfalls. I'd wager that the citizens of your new nation-states would, by and large, be no more involved in their governments than they are now. Voter apathy isn't a by-product of the Federal government, it's a problem with We, the People. Turning Uncle Sam into an extended family of fifty uncles, aunts, and cousins won't address that basic problem.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The problem is the national debt. $9 trillion and rising quickly.

We pay yearly interest on this amount of about $4 billion dollars.

If we are the wealthiest country in the world, why are we so far in debt?

Because of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. For every dollar the Fed prints, they issue a bond, with interest. They also back Central Banks, who give out fractured loans (more loaned than the bank has on hand), and everone gets caught up in a web of interest collecting debt.

The banking system funds lobbyists to bribe congress into doing certain projects which are funded by giving city and county budgets "cheap" loans.

Pretty soon, people, and local, state and federal governments need to take out loans to pay for the interest on the loans.

We have to take back our financial system, and then we can tackle corruption in government.

Reverse the Federal Reserve Act of 1913!
Print our own money like Abe Lincoln did (this is why he was shot!)
Pay off our debt.

Then we can spread the wealth around the world again and become the respected Nation that we once were. We don't need to be involved in every war on the planet either.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
reply to post by gottr
 


I'll set aside the fallacy that your idea wouldn't require a revolution...it's the very essence of a revolution. and it's already been tried. You can ask South Carolina, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, Arkansas, Texas and Tennessee how well it worked. Assuming that your mass secession didn't provoke the response that one did, you still have to settle a few things:

Money. Who prints / mints it, what backs it, and what are the interstate exchange rates? We can't use "US" dollars, since those are backed by Federal Treasury Bonds...so, what do we use, and what's my Arizona 'dollar' worth in Nevada?

Common Causes. If all fifty former states are quasi-independent, who pays for the Army / Navy / Air Force / Marine Corps / Coast Guard? Do individual states form their own militias? For the non-military minded, who pays for the Interstate Highway System? What about multi-state projects like the Hoover Dam and its associated water management?

I could keep going, but those little questions should be enough to get an interesting discussion going.

Now, let's assume that you find answers to all of those, and to various other social and economic pitfalls. I'd wager that the citizens of your new nation-states would, by and large, be no more involved in their governments than they are now. Voter apathy isn't a by-product of the Federal government, it's a problem with We, the People. Turning Uncle Sam into an extended family of fifty uncles, aunts, and cousins won't address that basic problem.


I dont see a need for a revolution to accomplish this task. The United States are made up of just that States that entered willingly into a collective group. As far as I know there isnt a law that says a state can withdraw from the 'union'. It may cause an uproar but that would be a good thing as it would show that the federal government doesnt care about freedom and further the cuase justly IMO.

As for money I was thinking something similar to a North American currency that can be used interstatly.

As far as highways and other interstate problems they could be addressed between state governments.

Fundamentally the idea is not to get more people involved in politics it is to make the voices of the people that are involved in politics heard and listened to. On a smaller local government scale this seems to be more feasable.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottr

I dont see a need for a revolution to accomplish this task. The United States are made up of just that States that entered willingly into a collective group. As far as I know there isnt a law that says a state can withdraw from the 'union'. It may cause an uproar but that would be a good thing as it would show that the federal government doesnt care about freedom and further the cuase justly IMO.


I can think of one law (actually a Constitutional Amendment) that forbids secession by implication, and a Supreme Court decision that denies the right of unilateral secession explicitly.

14th Amendment


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.


Note that national citizenship cannot be abridged by any act of a State? By withdrawing from the Federal government, your state legislatures would be doing more than 'abridging' the national citizenship of your population, they'd be eliminating it outright. Thus, secession would be a clear (and massive) violation of the 14th Amendment rights of everyone resident in your state.

Texas V. White

This one's a bit longer, so I'll pass on doing an external quote of the relevant passages. Follow the link, read the syllabus, and then read the majority ruling of the Court. Essentially, Texas V. White denies the right of unilateral secession (where one or more states elects to leave the Union). The question of a 'right to secede' has been settled law since 1868.




As for money I was thinking something similar to a North American currency that can be used interstatly.


The problem here is that you've just tossed the largest economic bloc in North America onto the scrap heap. Assuming that you could get 52 nations (Canada, Mexico, and the Disunited States) to agree on a single currency (in itself, that would take a writ from G-d Almighty, and even then I'm not holding my breath), why would Mexico or Canada be interested in the economic wellbeing of (as an example) Rhode Island? Some of your new nation-states will prosper, but a lot of them are going to get smothered in national debt and an unfavorable balance of trade before they have time to stitch together a new flag.



As far as highways and other interstate problems they could be addressed between state governments.


Translation: "I don't know how to settle it either, so I'm going to hope that humanity's good nature will come to the forefront." You should do some quick historical research into the near-wars over water rights to the Colorado River (still going on today, although the risk of out-and-out gunfire is much reduced), or ownership of islands in the Mississippi River channel. Without some sort of arbitration authority (and one with the raw power to make a decision stick), states have an abysmal track record of settling interstate debates. Just as an example, how do you pro-rate the cost of an interstate highway between states? What about the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, or an armored division?



Fundamentally the idea is not to get more people involved in politics it is to make the voices of the people that are involved in politics heard and listened to. On a smaller local government scale this seems to be more feasable.


Practical translation: Make lobbyists even more powerful than they were before?

All you've done is replace one large body with a group of smaller bodies that still have jurisdiction over thousands (or millions) of people. I don't see how that makes the mythical "Voice of the People" any more audible unless you get more of "The People" interested (and involved) in the process itself....and if you can do that, it will work on the Federal Government as well.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
That was a good read Stormhammer thanks for the info and insight.

1. As far as the ammendment goes it could be ratified in order to seperate from the union.

2. How can the district of columbia or the UN act inside United States borders? If they can do it shouldnt states be able to do it?

3. Texas vs White was about money and criminal acts intended with that money. Basically they were going to attempt to use US bonds to attack the US after they were seperated from the union. The whole situation smelled of corruption to me on Texas' part. I can see how that type of corruption could occur again but it would be foolish to think that it isnt happening right now on a much grander scale and impossible to detect or catch by citizens. Any idea how much money the fed collects from taxes and other income? I am sure the average citizen doesnt know that. They have no idea where the money is going so corruption will always be there.

4. Basically it is like business leadership. A supervisor can really only effectively manage X amount of people roughly 9. Same thing applies to the Fed as it is the supervisor of the states and people. Wouldnt it be easier for each state to supervise citizens within. Effectively it would run better as more attention and detail would be paid to the states needs which in turn could educate people more effectively about what is going on in the state politically and financially. Students of classes learn more effectively when the class size is smaller versus a larger class.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
My point here is what if the federal government no longer existed.

The unity of the states is what gives the U.S. its power. We don't want to become a fractured 3rd world country.


States would operate independently under there own conditions, constitutions, and bylaws.

States already have their own constitutions which is why some things are illegal in some states and not others.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


actually the system the OP offered has already been used. Before the American Revolution, the colonists of each state (even locally) printed their own currency. And each state was in essence its own country.

There were no issues with converting boston currency with say georgian money as both were really just certificates for gold.

We had a revolutionary war because the Bank of London tried to stop all that interest-free money from being printed.

I agree with the OP. Lets go back to the original intent of states rights over a federal goverment. Each state has its own Constitution for a reason.




[edit on 25-9-2007 by admriker444]



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Let me sum this issue up here. Any state that tried this would be surrounded by the military and those political figures who lead this would be put under the prison and tried as enemy of the states and branded social terrorist. This will never happen we are now under a police state we just don't know it...Well some of us don't.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   
This whole thing is very confusing to me. I dont understand why any state that seperates or attempts to seperate would be surrounded by the military. Considering that the united states was founded for the people by the people. If any states people decided that the majority wanted to seperate then the federal government should have no say. It is this reason that the states need to seperate in order to take the power away from the LARGE government and give it back to smaller local governments. I understand that the 14th ammendment denies this and probably for exactly this reason. It is a way for the federal government to retain its unhindered power over the people. If you were to give citizens of X state dual citizenship to both the local state and the remaining federal country then you wouldnt hinder their rights to anything.

This by far is the most logical way to revolt without actually revolting. Also it seems that this idea could make a good movie. Ununited states!

A few of you have posted negative comments about seperation from the Federal government but there must be some good ideas that could come from it. What are the positives of seperating from the FED?



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
If there are any positives, they aren't immediately obvious. The only positive that you've put forward is the highly dubious advantage of having a smaller government. Is a government that rules over 3,000,000 people (Missouri, or the Greater Phoenix Metro Area) really going to be that much more responsive to 'the people' than a government that rules over 300,000,000? In either case, single voices aren't going to be heard very clearly, if all. To get the outcome that you seem to want, you're going to need to break things down a lot more than reducing Federal government to State Governments. You're going to have to reduce individual political units to a size small enough that direct democracy (rather than a representative / republican form of democracy) would be practical....I'm not sure where that threshold is, but I'm fairly certain that it's very low by modern standards...probably not a lot larger than the population of Golden Age Athens. Even if you could break things down to that scale without fatal consequences for your economy and / or society, you'll still feel the impact of voter / citizen apathy and / or ignorance.

As a side note, before I get slammed for implying that the citizenry is ignorant, I'll point out that ignorance and stupidity are two different things. The average citizen (myself included) is ignorant. I have no idea about the requirements for proper storm drainage, or about the future need for electrical power in the Vally of the Sun. I have to leave decisions in those fields (and several others) in the hands of appointed experts with knowledge in the appropriate fields, or in the hands of elected representatives (who presumably will educate themselves or at least be advised before making a decision). Direct democracy places a huge burden on the citizen...so much of one, in fact, that I don't think it's really practical for any group larger than a lodge meeting in the modern age.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Hell, Im all for it. I'm still searching for personal secession. Just me and my property with no interaction whatsoever with the town, state or country arround me. Unfortunately every scenerio I have worked out so far either ends with me being shot to death or thrown in prison.

As far as secession being unlawful and resulting in Federal military action I fail to see how, once seperated from the union, federal laws still retain their power.

Let the fed surround a state and start killing it's residents. It will do more to get the message of a tyrannical government out than any letter or protest could ever do.

The problem is that way too many people like their dependency. Sure, people hate paying into the system but ask them to do without, even temporarily for a time of adjustment or change and they freak out. God forbid they go without their internet porn, cable TV, lowfat yellow cheese singles or beer for even the briefest of time.

Secession by an entire state may not be likely anytime soon but I still see no reason why I, personally, cant divorce myself and my land from the union.

If we all refused to pay taxes that might get the message across. There arent enough bullets or jail cells for all of us. But that goes back to the dependents enjoying their dependence.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
This whole thing is very confusing to me. I dont understand why any state that seperates or attempts to seperate would be surrounded by the military. Considering that the united states was founded for the people by the people. If any states people decided that the majority wanted to seperate then the federal government should have no say. It is this reason that the states need to seperate in order to take the power away from the LARGE government and give it back to smaller local governments. I understand that the 14th ammendment denies this and probably for exactly this reason. It is a way for the federal government to retain its unhindered power over the people. If you were to give citizens of X state dual citizenship to both the local state and the remaining federal country then you wouldnt hinder their rights to anything.

This by far is the most logical way to revolt without actually revolting. Also it seems that this idea could make a good movie. Ununited states!

A few of you have posted negative comments about seperation from the Federal government but there must be some good ideas that could come from it. What are the positives of seperating from the FED?


Gttr,
It all sounds great I would be willing to try any change in the way our government is running now..Thats not the issues, the only people who are willing to fight change are those who are afraid of change. If you ever get a chance to read a book titled "who stole my cheese"..read it and the basics of this book can be applied to the very subject we are going back and forth here on. It's not that it's a bad idea it's just the federal government is now in control over each and every one in here. The reason some don't see this is because we haven't graduated to a point where our street corners have the military standing on it. But what they fail to see is the police are pawns for the federal government being used through the state and local governments it's all the same no one state will ever be able to break away.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsloan

Originally posted by gottr
This whole thing is very confusing to me. I dont understand why any state that seperates or attempts to seperate would be surrounded by the military. Considering that the united states was founded for the people by the people. If any states people decided that the majority wanted to seperate then the federal government should have no say. It is this reason that the states need to seperate in order to take the power away from the LARGE government and give it back to smaller local governments. I understand that the 14th ammendment denies this and probably for exactly this reason. It is a way for the federal government to retain its unhindered power over the people. If you were to give citizens of X state dual citizenship to both the local state and the remaining federal country then you wouldnt hinder their rights to anything.

This by far is the most logical way to revolt without actually revolting. Also it seems that this idea could make a good movie. Ununited states!

A few of you have posted negative comments about seperation from the Federal government but there must be some good ideas that could come from it. What are the positives of seperating from the FED?


Gttr,
It all sounds great I would be willing to try any change in the way our government is running now..Thats not the issues, the only people who are willing to fight change are those who are afraid of change. If you ever get a chance to read a book titled "who stole my cheese"..read it and the basics of this book can be applied to the very subject we are going back and forth here on. It's not that it's a bad idea it's just the federal government is now in control over each and every one in here. The reason some don't see this is because we haven't graduated to a point where our street corners have the military standing on it. But what they fail to see is the police are pawns for the federal government being used through the state and local governments it's all the same no one state will ever be able to break away.


I disagree with you that one state couldnt break away. I think the hardest part would be to convince the residents of X state that it is a good idea. If the federal government were to start shooting and jailing polititions/citizens in that state, then hopefully it would jolt other states into succeeding and helping the cause. In this scenerio where the almighty FED wont let go I do see it turning ugly. I dont think it would ever come to that though. People would rise up in masses against the FED.

Not only that but now is a perfect time to test it out. The military is fed up and stretched super thin. Despite what you see on the news with soldiers saying "we are doing what is right and needed". It is all untrue, mostly. Soldiers are told what they can and cannot say to the media. There is a minority I am sure that dont mind fighting in endless wars but the majority are tired of it. Have you ever seen a soldier on the news saying "man I am tired of this #"? You never will. Plus the national guard is just as well equiped as active duty soldiers and the national guard is state operated.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottr
This whole thing is very confusing to me. I dont understand why any state that seperates or attempts to seperate would be surrounded by the military.


There is no need to get confused because the military would do no such thing. Its in the constitution so its totally legal. There are specific steps which the state must abide by because you don't want some rogue state government attempting to recede without the permission of the state's people.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
[
There is no need to get confused because the military would do no such thing. Its in the constitution so its totally legal. There are specific steps which the state must abide by because you don't want some rogue state government attempting to recede without the permission of the state's people.


Exactly where in the Constitution is the right to secede (not 'recede') given, and where are those 'specific steps' spelled out? Citations of relevant Constitutional passages and or / excerpts from law or Supreme Court decisions would be welcome.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Exactly where in the Constitution is the right to secede (not 'recede') given

I know its secede.

Can you spell 'typo' professor perfect.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Exactly where in the Constitution is the right to secede (not 'recede') given

I know its secede.

Can you spell 'typo' professor perfect.


All too well
In fact, I'm fluent in Typo, Hillbilly, and Redneck. I'm working on English, but I don't make any promises where it's concerned. You'd be amazed at the number of people who don't know the term, which is why I took the liberty (or license) of making the correction.

Still waiting on those Constitutional citations supporting secession, BTW...

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 

A little known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states, Virginia and New York, made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

So the right of secession claimed by Virginia and New York cannot be seen as "conditions" or amendments to the Constitutional proposal. If they were, those states' ratifications would have been rejected, as per Madison's letter. The other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification, the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press, were agreed by all, federalists included, to be beyond the power of the federal government.

The question was not whether such rights would exist under the new government, but whether the rights, specifically those of individuals, needed to be made explicit in a bill of rights. Their being claimed in Virginia's ratification presented no obstacle to Virginia being accepted by Congress as the 10th state in the new union, because the powers claimed were consistent with the Constitution, as understood by those who drew it up and those who recommended it to the states for ratification. The right to secede claimed in the Virginia ratification has to be regarded in the same light.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Interesting.

Do you have a source for that? I'd be interested in looking into it once I get home from work.

The question would still be open as to whether a pre-ratification agreement such as that would take precedence over later rulings (such as the 14th Amendment)...though to play Devil's Advocate with myself, you might make a counter-argument based on the 10th. Yah...at this point, I definitely want sources!!


Once we settle the legal issue, we can move on to the practical problems of dismantling the Union....and then the South will rise again!!!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join