Why would anyone want to put the party back in office that has not even tried to pass reform in healthcare or illegal immigration

Illegal immigration = ILLEGAL. No need to reform it, no need to support 'em, just deport them.

Govt Health care is unconstitutional period.

I will say the Republicans and Dems could have passed laws to lift the laws that prevent people from buying insurance across state lines. That is what the commerce clause is all about.

Or you could look at it another way, and simply heavily penalize those who hire them. They come because there is a market for their labor. How about attacking the problem at its source?? Why does it seem as if the conservative way always to attack the vulnerable, rather than those who profit from their vulnerability?

Govt Health care is unconstitutional period.
Prove it. Period.

While I'm not enough of a constitutional scholar to really address this (and I suspect that neither or you), I wonder at this from an admitted secessionist. Hmmmm.... I can just imagine the "states rights" uproar if Washington began REALLY assaulting state privilege when it comes to internal matters such as this. First the insurance companies....next ?

The Commerce Clause does give the Congress the authority to promote commerce among the states. Since this a power enumerated in the Constitution, it is a right not reserved to the States.

Glad you included this -- even though it is stuck at the bottom -- the Commerce Clause defeats your entire argument.

We may have a small agreement here. I think the companies that hire illegals should be fined heavily. We should also stop providing FREE services for illegals as well.

We also need to start deporting them and build a border fence.

David B. Rivkin, a constitutional lawyer with Baker & Hostetler, told CNSNews.com that Hoyer’s argument [ for govt run health care] was “silly,” adding that if the general welfare clause was that elastic, then nothing would be outside of Congress’ powers.

“Congressman Hoyer is wrong,” Rivkin said. “The notion that the general welfare language is a basis for a specific legislative exercise is all silly because if that’s true, because general welfare language is inherently limitless, then the federal government can do anything.

The Commerce Clause does give the Congress the authority to promote commerce among the states. Since this a power enumerated in the Constitution, it is a right not reserved to the States.

BUT, I think you find yourself in the unenviable position of both hating the health insurance lobby (in wishing for their classification as commerce) AND supporting it (in your objections to a public insurance option).

Some background. States dictate what has to be in their statewide insurance policies. What they include does not meet the needs of everyone. People cannot opt out of certain services. For example, I don't need drug rehab services but have to pay for them. They essentially allow some companies a monopoly in their state. They do not allow out of state companies to sell their policies in state.

In any event, it is the States themselves who are restricting inter state commerce. Since the Constitution gives the power to promote interstate commerce, they can pass a law to change all of this.

Generally I am a big proponent of States rights which have been usurped by Congress. However in this case, Congress has the right to fix this. Originally States set up tarriffs between them and other states. This was part of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation that the founders sought to fix by adopting the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause does give the Congress the authority to promote commerce among the states. Since this a power enumerated in the Constitution, it is a right not reserved to the States.

Govt Health care is unconstitutional period.

I will say the Republicans and Dems could have passed laws to lift the laws that prevent people from buying insurance across state lines.

Or you could look at it another way, and simply heavily penalize those who hire them? They come because there is a market for their labor. How about attacking the problem at its source??

Prove it. Period.

While I'm not enough of a constitutional scholar to really address this (and I suspect that neither are you), I wonder at this from an admitted secessionist. Hmmmm.... I can just imagine the "states rights" uproar if Washington began REALLY assaulting state privilege when it comes to internal matters such as this.

I beg to differ. I refer you to Federalist 41.

The 10th Amendment. Period.

How is purchasing goods and services across state lines internal? In fact the Constitution explicitely gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

I frankly want Obama succeed at lowering taxes, lowering health care insurance costs, helping to create jobs, reducing the govt debt and winning the wars. I just don't think he is accomplishing any of those things.

Revolution was new word back then,it ment what had occured in France in its revolution and the Uk in its 1688 revolution and does not require any force to enact, and refers to the transfer of political power/authority by lawfull means from one section of society to anotherm rather than say the revolution ofa planet to its sun.

As far as secession. I think we should just give CA and the blue states to Canada. The people would be much happier there and it would save them the trouble of turning the US into Canada.

Incorrect, the constition gave proprerty rights in people to slave owners, so your comment about liberty is factually incorrect as it gave ownership of people the highest protection in law possible. secesion is an inherent atribute of a sovrein body, and in the coinstition it resides in where the sovreign body exists, that is the states who created a Union, a supremcay caluse otherwise all states being equal could deny the others there sovreign will with there own, so that while in that Union, its laws were of paramount authority, the Union is nota sovreign body, if it was the suprmacy clause would not be required.

Yes it is...

Just as the legal basis of Chase in Texas V White rests and refers to the pre amble of the Constition

Resolved, That in adoption of the Federal Constition, the States adopting acted severally as free and independednt sovrfeignties, delegating a portion of there powers to be excercised by the Federal government for the increased security of each against dangers, domsetic and forgien and that any intermeddeling by any of the states or any combination of their citizens with the domestic instituition of the others on any pretext whatsocver, political, moral, or religouse witha view to disturbing the states so interfered with, endangers there peaceand tranquility, objects for which the Union was formed, and the necessaary consequence tends to weaken and destroy the Union itself.

But the most telling example of your lie about madison is the following from Madison.

That acts of congress in violition of the constition are absolutly void is an untenable posistion. It does not however consist with with respect and forbearence due from any confederate state towards the general government to fly in open resistance upon any infraction of the constition. the mode and energy of the injustice should always conform to the nature of the voilition, the intention of its authors and teh danger of dealy. but in the case of immediate and palpable infratcions of the constition, affecting the sovreignty of the states and the liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the duty of the state to interpose itself for the protection of the people, ina manner best calculated to secure that end. when emergencys occur that are ither beyond the reach of judicial tribunals or to pressing to admit delay incident to their forms, states have no common umpire, must be their own judges and execute there own descicions. it will thus be proper for the several states to await the ultimate disposal of the obnoxouse measure recomended by the Sec of War, or pending before before congress, and so to use there power acording to the charcters these measure s shall finaly asume, as effectivly to protect themere own sovreignty and the rights and liberties of there citizens.

The former [the claim to secede at will] answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.

Webster would threaten to secede, or rather take his state into secesion, over the militai acts of 1814.

Webster went from being an anto secionist to being a proponent and user of secesion for the rest of his life arfter consulting with Madison, debate with Hayne and Calhoun in congress.

Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! ... There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility...We could not separate the states by any such line if we were to draw it...
Daniel Webster (March 7, 1850 A Plea for Harmony and Peace)

Is the USSC a secesionst cabal?. Ware V Hamilton 1798

Lastly Texas V White allowed that if all states agreed that secesion was ok, then it was ok, but since Texas V White was overturned on appeal

it was only case law for a couple of years during reconstruction and is now only of historical intrest as it has no weight in law

Incorrect, secesion is the opoiste of accede, one can secede from a legal compact just as one can acede to it

I think article clears up misconception that the General Welfare Clause gives congress to do just about anything including meddling in heath care insurance.

[T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

Secession is a States right issue.

Wrong. See above paragraph and see the 9th Amendment, which the founding fathers are saying in essence, 'even if we forgot to put it in, if the people demand it, they get it'.

The USSC found in one case involving the legalization of marijuana in California that the Commerce Clause was impuned because marijuana in California might cross state lines. Thus, Congress had the right to regulate it under the Commerce Clause.

Which is the entire point at contention, so asked and answered. You do noty wish to argue that SCOTS dicat was that if all teh states said secesion was ok, then it was ok,you must not want to admit that after the 14th amndemnt it can only rule that way, and not as before in 1860 when all the citizens in the americas were only citizens of the sperarte states, and as such the right of secesion had moved from the sttes to excecise it seperatly for its people, to where it now resides in teh agregate for all the states. You do not wish to argue this because of your other statmenmts not boubt and hope im not payimng attention to your inability to mainatian a cohernt argument of who is sovreign and what tht means.

Sorry, is the correct term, dicta is not precendtial and forms no case law, or by your own argument case law is that if all states agree secesion is constitional, since history shows that states uniltaeraly seceded from the UK in 1688, 1774-6, from the AOC and again in the WBTS, ist fair to say, millions of citizes understood the oposite to be the case.

Only on what Texas V white was brought on, the comment of the judge were meerly dicta and not part of the rulling,nor was secesion part of the rulling as that part was overturned, making even the dicat irelavent.

Because the Union required only 9 states to join to make it come into effect, each seperate stae come into the Union by state wide convention for that purpose, everything in law is uncreated in the same manner it is created. Law works that way.

Congress May 20 1860 first resolution of the 7 forwarded for voting, by J Davis of Miss. can be read in A Stephens a constional view of the late war beteeen the states, and a J R garhem who won in canada the right of condition secesion using congresese votes on where sovreringty resides, therby showing in court where finadamental law rests, A Constitional history of secesion.

Voted for Ca, indiana,Minn,Oregon, penn, all the southern states, Del and NJ abstained, from the vote.



Relavence is how the sentaors voted on there understanding on the laws they lived under and created, as they pertained to state soverignty, and by extension the right to secede, something every state in teh Union had excercised up to that point in time.

Webster lived in Mass, whose constition was amdeded in 1780 to include, this, has this to say.

The people alone have the the inalianble and incontravertable and indefeasable right to insittute government, and to reform, alter or toataly change the same when their protection saftey and propserity require it.

Webster voted to refuse to provide militai and hsisstate secedded from doing so, and Hartford was done with Websters help and vote.

..... Virginia’s ratification (with a vote of 89 to 79) came on June 25, 1788 and New York’s (with a vote of 30 to 27) on July 26, 1788. Even though the ratifications by Virginia and New York occurred after the ratification of the Constitution by the necessary ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, they were nevertheless still viewed as crucial. When the ratifications of Virginia and New York finally occurred, confidence was high that the new nation would at least have a fighting chance to succeed.

First, the ratifications of the Constitution by New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island were not given conditionally upon those states being granted the right to secede by the other states. Had that been the case, the ratifications would have been invalid. Ratifications of the Constitution had to be unconditional.

Those who voted to ratify the Constitution in New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island simply put into writing a right they thought naturally belonged to their respective states.

The states were voluntarily joining the Union, and most people believed the same principles toward self-governance that gave states the right to join the Union also gave states the right to withdraw from the Union.

Second, the ratifications of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island were unanimously accepted as valid. Those states’ claims to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington who presided over the Constitutional Convention and served as a delegate from Virginia.

Third, many lawyers believe that the acceptance of these three ratifications (New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island) as valid guarantees all states the right to secede. This conclusion is based on the principle that whatever rights are held by some states must be held by all states.

You are attempting to say that because the colonies rebelled from Britain by consensus that this somehow means that they have given consent to any future secession by any one (or group) of states... this is completely illogical... this in no way determines that they have given consent in perpetuity to unilateral secession... this could not be a more gross distortion if it were intended to be... each instance of secession is a separate case and requires separate consent... the consent to withdraw, and rebel if agreement is not forthcoming, in one instance does NOT constitute consent to all future such actions... in any way... to argue it does is utter bullshit...

Texas v. White IS established case law in the US... ALL courts and law in the US agree with this... your disageement does not, IN ANY WAY, dispute or negate that... the argument is simply one of "I think otherwise so it must be otherwise"... such an opinion in no way negates the reality of it as established case law...

This too is utter bullshit... the number of states consenting to the original Union in NO WAY determines the number of states required to consent in future instances... this is an invention of your own mind, not a fact... consent must be based on the number of states represented at the time of secession not the number of original ratifiers...

Even if it were true, which it isn't, there were not nine states seceding which formed part of the original ratifiers, there were only 4... nor were there nine original ratifiers which were willing to consent to the secession... further, it doesn't account for the conditions of admission which existed at the time of admission for the majority of the states attempting to secede... The states attempting to secede would not have met the necesary conditions even by your unsupportable argument...

This still does not explain anything about how a NON-BINDING resolution purported to be from ONE of the two chambers has any relevance to the issue.

This still does nothing to establish any point of Webster being an ardent secessionist... in any way other than an "Alice in Wonderland" manner where "words mean exactly what I choose them to mean..."

This consideration of necessity was based largely on the geographic positioning of New York and Virginia (thier absence would have split the new nation into 3 discontiguous parts, a likely untenable situation for the new nation) as well as thier economic position among the colonies and thier populations (almost half of the new nation)

Incorrect the debates are avalible online and the provision was inserted to provide the right of sece
sion, as explained by Justcie Pendleton just Marshal ande Madison in va for instance.




Problem is the AOC was ended by unilateral secesion, every state left seperatly and
peawcfully which was why the AOC perpetual and indivisable portion was droped from the next constition, as it was made clear that the right power and authority to make and unmake contitions existed with the seperate state sovreigntys, in the AOC it was expreessed by the state legislature, and in the Constition, it was palced where it existed, in the people of teh states, who as in RI case had been denied the right to express there will becaused teh legislature refused to call an elction or debate on the sttes joining the new proposed Union. In this way, the contition become more perfect.




No it refers to the constional protected right to secede peacfully, protected by a styate militia against a small federal army, when the government wishes to practice tyranny instead of law, anyone can use force, but the constition aolows the mechanism of peacfull secesion without such use of force but provides the inability of the federal government to over match the state militia with force.



The right to fight to protect ones rights is protected, but the right to peacfully do is denied?, what a strange and unlegal minded viwpoint.

Only a sovreign body can enter into the Union compact, the Union came into being when 9 of the 13 members ratification created it, as madison made clear, if the others did not, or not enough to reach 9 did, the pososistion of the others was they were seperate sovreign bodys.

No, im pointing out in UK contitional law the colonies seceded as per Uk constitional law allowed them to do so, and then the crown decided it was above the law, which as the soveriegn it is allowed to do, and denied them that right. Itsa fact of law, and logic is rested on facts, the UK crown was where sovreignty rested, the right of secesion is allowed in the UK constition, Sovreignty passed in the TOP to the 13 seperate Coloniees who now posseed it. Secesion is a unlitareral action, because if it requires others consent, the body attempting it is not a sovereign body.
....
Logic dictates that when the UK crown passed sovreignty to the 13 seperate former colonines that the right of secesion passed to them as this is now the location of sovriegnty.

Case laW yes, but not on secesion as secesion is not whats on the court documents.

B. Secession Is Clearly Unconstitutional.
Kohlhaas argues that the appropriate time to review the
constitutionality of 03INDP is after its enactment rather than
before its certification, since there is no controlling authority
clearly establishing its unconstitutionality. The crux of his
argument is that neither the Alaska Constitution nor the United
States Constitution contains provisions expressly prohibiting
secession. The state argues that 03INDP is clearly
unconstitutional under Supreme Court decisions addressing
secession. We agree with the state that secession is clearly
unconstitutional.
Shortly after the Civil War, the Supreme Court
considered whether the Confederate Texas legislature had the
power to pass legislation resulting in the sale of bonds that the
federal government had issued to Texas on its admission to the
Union in 1845. The bonds in Texas v. White,19 issued by the
United States before the Civil War, were not payable without the
Texas governors signature. During the war, the Confederate Texas
legislature repealed the signature requirement and sold the
bonds. After the war, the Supreme Court held that the sales were
invalid since the Confederate legislation was void, having been
enacted for the unlawful purpose of funding treason.20 The
nullity of the Confederate legislation is essential to the
holding.21
Kohlhaas maintains that Texas v. White contains highly
suspect reasoning because it fails to discuss the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments. He argues that because the Constitution is
otherwise silent on secession, secession is one of the rights
reserved by those amendments. The decision quotes the Tenth
Amendment almost exactly and discusses at great length the rights
of the states and the people within the Union:
Under the Constitution, though the powers of
the States were much restricted, still, all
powers not delegated to the United States,
nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people. .
. . [T]he people of each State compose a
State, having its own government, and endowed
with all the functions essential to separate
and independent existence[;] . . . without
the States in union, there could be no such
political body as the United States. Not
only, therefore, can there be no loss of
separate and independent autonomy to the
States, through their union under the
Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably
said that the preservation of the States, and
the maintenance of their governments, are as
much within the design and care of the
Constitution as the preservation of the Union
and the maintenance of the National
government. The Constitution, in all its
provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,
composed of indestructible States. When,
therefore, Texas became one of the United
States, she entered into an indissoluble
relation. All the obligations of perpetual
union, and all the guaranties of republican
government in the Union, attached at once to
the State. The act which consummated her
admission into the Union was something more
than a compact; it was the incorporation of a
new member into the political body. And it
was final. The union between Texas and the
other States was as complete, as perpetual,
and as indissoluble as the union between the
original States. There was no place for
reconsideration, or revocation, except
through revolution, or through consent of the
States.[22]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Tenth
Amendment in a manner contrary to the interpretation Kohlhaas
urges. In considering whether states could impose term limits on
their federal legislators, the Court held that the Amendment
could only reserve that which existed before.23 Thus The states
can exercise no powers whatsoever, which exclusively spring out
of the existence of the national government . . . . No state can
say, that it has reserved, what it never possessed. 24 Like
representation in Congress, secession from the Union springs from
joinder to the Union. No state possessed a right to secede
before admission, and so no state would retain such a right under
the Tenth Amendment.
Kohlhaas also suggests that Texas v. White should not
be taken as black letter law since the decision is tainted by the
context, emotions, and political situation immediately following
the Civil War, and has not been cited except as dicta by modern
cases. This argument not only trivializes the impact of the
Civil War on the Nation but also ignores a plenitude of Supreme
Court cases holding as completely null the purported acts of
secession by other Confederate states.25 Unsurprisingly, the
Supreme Court has had little occasion since Reconstruction to
address the legality of secession. In 2004 the Supreme Court
observed that inclusion of the word indivisible in the Pledge of
Allegiance was significant because the question whether a State
could secede from the Union had been intensely debated and was
unresolved prior to the Civil War.26
Even though secession is not explicitly addressed in
the United States or Alaska Constitutions, it is clearly
unconstitutional since opinions of the Supreme Court interpreting
the federal constitution including Texas v. White constitute
controlling authority.27 Kohlhaass attempt to discount the force
of Texas v. White is wholly misplaced. In 1960 Justice
Frankfurter characterized that decision thus:
The readjustment of the relationship between
the States that had remained in the Union and
those that had seceded presented major issues
not only for the political branches of the
Government, the President and the Congress,
but also for this Court. Insofar as the
perplexing and recalcitrant problems of
Reconstruction involved legal solutions, the
evolution of constitutional doctrine was an
indispensable element in the process of
healing the wounds of the sanguinary
conflict. It was in aid of that process that
this Court formulated the doctrine expressed
in the famous sentence in State of Texas v.
White: The Constitution, in all its
provisions, looks to an indestructible Union,
composed of indestructible States.[28]

When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we
Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for
good or ill, in perpetuity. To suggest otherwise would disparage
the republican character of the National Government.

V. CONCLUSION
Secession is clearly unconstitutional and therefore an
improper subject for the initiative. Accordingly, the lieutenant
governor correctly declined to certify the petition, and the
superior court correctly affirmed his decision. We therefore
AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.

Incorrect the debates are avalible online and the provision was inserted to provide the right of sece
sion, as explained by Justcie Pendleton just Marshal ande Madison in va for instance.

..... Virginia’s ratification (with a vote of 89 to 79) came on June 25, 1788 and New York’s (with a vote of 30 to 27) on July 26, 1788. Even though the ratifications by Virginia and New York occurred after the ratification of the Constitution by the necessary ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, they were nevertheless still viewed as crucial. When the ratifications of Virginia and New York finally occurred, confidence was high that the new nation would at least have a fighting chance to succeed.