| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
12 Dec 2004 11:46:31 PM |
| Object: |
Neo-Secessionism |
NeoSecessionism NYT Magazine
New York Times Magazine ^ | 12-12-04 | JACK HITT
Neo-Secessionism By JACK HITT New York Times Published: December 12,
2004
Enraged by the president's war and still angry about the last
election, the Massachusetts Legislature recently called for a special
meeting of New England states to consider secession from the country.
Recent, that is, if 1814 is recent. That year, at the Hartford
Convention, delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Vermont toyed with an idea the country would hear a
good bit more of half a century later: that secession was a right,
embedded in the Constitution.
These days, in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, talk of
secession is once again whipping through the New England states.
Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states. One Internet pamphleteer argued: ''In the middle of the
country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the
fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are
fabulous.'' A proposed map showing the United States of Canada just
above ''JesusLand'' has become an instant Internet classic.
Paul Lewis, professor of English at Boston College, has written
several articles exploring secession and the logical step beyond. Last
year he noted that ''Gore's states are contiguous either to Canada or
to other Gore states,'' except New Mexico. ''In the most peaceful and
democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert
E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into
provinces and join Canada.''
When contacted, old secession organizations in the Deep South were
quick with advice. ''I've heard about this,'' said Michael Hill,
president of the League of the South, which advocates the modern
secession of old Dixie. ''I say to the Yankee states, 'Go, and be in a
hurry about it.''' Growing serious, Hill observed that there isn't
really a red-state-blue-state divide. If you examine the map closely,
many counties in blue states are red. By population, the real divide
is rural versus urban. ''I would encourage them to start secession
groups in the cities,'' he said. ''I've always liked the city-state
idea. It worked quite well in the Middle Ages.''
But if it didn't work out, and there had to be a War of Southern
Aggression to save the Union, Hill saw some good even in that. ''We
could go up there and get back some of the stolen silverware they
looted from our ancestors 140 years ago.'' ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
15 Dec 2004 08:22:29 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
NeoSecessionism NYT Magazine
New York Times Magazine ^ | 12-12-04 | JACK HITT
Neo-Secessionism By JACK HITT New York Times Published: December 12,
2004
Enraged by the president's war and still angry about the last
election, the Massachusetts Legislature recently called for a special
meeting of New England states to consider secession from the country.
Recent, that is, if 1814 is recent. That year, at the Hartford
Convention, delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Vermont toyed with an idea the country would hear a
good bit more of half a century later: that secession was a right,
embedded in the Constitution.
These days, in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, talk of
secession is once again whipping through the New England states.
Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states. One Internet pamphleteer argued: ''In the middle of the
country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the
fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are
fabulous.'' A proposed map showing the United States of Canada just
above ''JesusLand'' has become an instant Internet classic.
Paul Lewis, professor of English at Boston College, has written
several articles exploring secession and the logical step beyond. Last
year he noted that ''Gore's states are contiguous either to Canada or
to other Gore states,'' except New Mexico. ''In the most peaceful and
democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert
E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into
provinces and join Canada.''
When contacted, old secession organizations in the Deep South were
quick with advice. ''I've heard about this,'' said Michael Hill,
president of the League of the South, which advocates the modern
secession of old Dixie. ''I say to the Yankee states, 'Go, and be in a
hurry about it.''' Growing serious, Hill observed that there isn't
really a red-state-blue-state divide. If you examine the map closely,
many counties in blue states are red. By population, the real divide
is rural versus urban. ''I would encourage them to start secession
groups in the cities,'' he said. ''I've always liked the city-state
idea. It worked quite well in the Middle Ages.''
But if it didn't work out, and there had to be a War of Southern
Aggression to save the Union, Hill saw some good even in that. ''We
could go up there and get back some of the stolen silverware they
looted from our ancestors 140 years ago.'' ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
10th is clear.
Secession was and remains legal.
As long as the means of leaving the Union is democratically done, and
the Natural Law rights of the State's inhabitants are not violated (i.e.
the Ninth is respected).
of course if the State leaves the Union democratically and then abuses
it's Powers over her People - The People (as all Peoples of the World)
retain the Inalienable right to a Call to Arms to right injustice.
peace.
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
15 Dec 2004 11:05:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:22:29 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
NeoSecessionism NYT Magazine
New York Times Magazine ^ | 12-12-04 | JACK HITT
Neo-Secessionism By JACK HITT New York Times Published: December 12,
2004
Enraged by the president's war and still angry about the last
election, the Massachusetts Legislature recently called for a special
meeting of New England states to consider secession from the country.
Recent, that is, if 1814 is recent. That year, at the Hartford
Convention, delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Vermont toyed with an idea the country would hear a
good bit more of half a century later: that secession was a right,
embedded in the Constitution.
These days, in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, talk of
secession is once again whipping through the New England states.
Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states. One Internet pamphleteer argued: ''In the middle of the
country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the
fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are
fabulous.'' A proposed map showing the United States of Canada just
above ''JesusLand'' has become an instant Internet classic.
Paul Lewis, professor of English at Boston College, has written
several articles exploring secession and the logical step beyond. Last
year he noted that ''Gore's states are contiguous either to Canada or
to other Gore states,'' except New Mexico. ''In the most peaceful and
democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert
E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into
provinces and join Canada.''
When contacted, old secession organizations in the Deep South were
quick with advice. ''I've heard about this,'' said Michael Hill,
president of the League of the South, which advocates the modern
secession of old Dixie. ''I say to the Yankee states, 'Go, and be in a
hurry about it.''' Growing serious, Hill observed that there isn't
really a red-state-blue-state divide. If you examine the map closely,
many counties in blue states are red. By population, the real divide
is rural versus urban. ''I would encourage them to start secession
groups in the cities,'' he said. ''I've always liked the city-state
idea. It worked quite well in the Middle Ages.''
But if it didn't work out, and there had to be a War of Southern
Aggression to save the Union, Hill saw some good even in that. ''We
could go up there and get back some of the stolen silverware they
looted from our ancestors 140 years ago.'' ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
10th is clear.
Secession was and remains legal.
As long as the means of leaving the Union is democratically done, and
the Natural Law rights of the State's inhabitants are not violated (i.e.
the Ninth is respected).
of course if the State leaves the Union democratically and then abuses
it's Powers over her People - The People (as all Peoples of the World)
retain the Inalienable right to a Call to Arms to right injustice.
peace.
I suspect that the 45% of the folks in the blue states that voted
Republican won't go peacefully and Republicans have more guns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
16 Dec 2004 06:09:08 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:22:29 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
NeoSecessionism NYT Magazine
New York Times Magazine ^ | 12-12-04 | JACK HITT
Neo-Secessionism By JACK HITT New York Times Published: December 12,
2004
Enraged by the president's war and still angry about the last
election, the Massachusetts Legislature recently called for a special
meeting of New England states to consider secession from the country.
Recent, that is, if 1814 is recent. That year, at the Hartford
Convention, delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Vermont toyed with an idea the country would hear a
good bit more of half a century later: that secession was a right,
embedded in the Constitution.
These days, in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, talk of
secession is once again whipping through the New England states.
Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states. One Internet pamphleteer argued: ''In the middle of the
country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the
fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are
fabulous.'' A proposed map showing the United States of Canada just
above ''JesusLand'' has become an instant Internet classic.
Paul Lewis, professor of English at Boston College, has written
several articles exploring secession and the logical step beyond. Last
year he noted that ''Gore's states are contiguous either to Canada or
to other Gore states,'' except New Mexico. ''In the most peaceful and
democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert
E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into
provinces and join Canada.''
When contacted, old secession organizations in the Deep South were
quick with advice. ''I've heard about this,'' said Michael Hill,
president of the League of the South, which advocates the modern
secession of old Dixie. ''I say to the Yankee states, 'Go, and be in a
hurry about it.''' Growing serious, Hill observed that there isn't
really a red-state-blue-state divide. If you examine the map closely,
many counties in blue states are red. By population, the real divide
is rural versus urban. ''I would encourage them to start secession
groups in the cities,'' he said. ''I've always liked the city-state
idea. It worked quite well in the Middle Ages.''
But if it didn't work out, and there had to be a War of Southern
Aggression to save the Union, Hill saw some good even in that. ''We
could go up there and get back some of the stolen silverware they
looted from our ancestors 140 years ago.'' ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
10th is clear.
Secession was and remains legal.
As long as the means of leaving the Union is democratically done, and
the Natural Law rights of the State's inhabitants are not violated (i.e.
the Ninth is respected).
of course if the State leaves the Union democratically and then abuses
it's Powers over her People - The People (as all Peoples of the World)
retain the Inalienable right to a Call to Arms to right injustice.
peace.
I suspect that the 45% of the folks in the blue states that voted
Republican won't go peacefully and Republicans have more guns.
you may be right. they have a Constitutional duty to obey the will of
the Majority on the matter of secession.
I would equally defend the South's right of the majority to leave the
Union and form a more socially Conservative society.
I support the Constitution (Rule of Law) First.
my political positions are a distant third of fourth.
10th remains, Any State has the right to leave the Union. Just as the
South in 1861 had the Legal Right to leave, all States today retain that
right.
the 10th was never repealed.
Seems only Libertarians beleive in State's Rights today.
Reichpugs now only worship Force, and ignore Rights of the
weaker............thugs.
Democrats never did beleive in State's Rights.
sad..............nobody respects our Constitution and the need for the
Balances of Powers it inumerates..
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
| User: "Captain Compassion" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
16 Dec 2004 07:44:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:09:08 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:22:29 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
NeoSecessionism NYT Magazine
New York Times Magazine ^ | 12-12-04 | JACK HITT
Neo-Secessionism By JACK HITT New York Times Published: December 12,
2004
Enraged by the president's war and still angry about the last
election, the Massachusetts Legislature recently called for a special
meeting of New England states to consider secession from the country.
Recent, that is, if 1814 is recent. That year, at the Hartford
Convention, delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Vermont toyed with an idea the country would hear a
good bit more of half a century later: that secession was a right,
embedded in the Constitution.
These days, in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, talk of
secession is once again whipping through the New England states.
Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states. One Internet pamphleteer argued: ''In the middle of the
country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the
fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are
fabulous.'' A proposed map showing the United States of Canada just
above ''JesusLand'' has become an instant Internet classic.
Paul Lewis, professor of English at Boston College, has written
several articles exploring secession and the logical step beyond. Last
year he noted that ''Gore's states are contiguous either to Canada or
to other Gore states,'' except New Mexico. ''In the most peaceful and
democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert
E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into
provinces and join Canada.''
When contacted, old secession organizations in the Deep South were
quick with advice. ''I've heard about this,'' said Michael Hill,
president of the League of the South, which advocates the modern
secession of old Dixie. ''I say to the Yankee states, 'Go, and be in a
hurry about it.''' Growing serious, Hill observed that there isn't
really a red-state-blue-state divide. If you examine the map closely,
many counties in blue states are red. By population, the real divide
is rural versus urban. ''I would encourage them to start secession
groups in the cities,'' he said. ''I've always liked the city-state
idea. It worked quite well in the Middle Ages.''
But if it didn't work out, and there had to be a War of Southern
Aggression to save the Union, Hill saw some good even in that. ''We
could go up there and get back some of the stolen silverware they
looted from our ancestors 140 years ago.'' ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
10th is clear.
Secession was and remains legal.
As long as the means of leaving the Union is democratically done, and
the Natural Law rights of the State's inhabitants are not violated (i.e.
the Ninth is respected).
of course if the State leaves the Union democratically and then abuses
it's Powers over her People - The People (as all Peoples of the World)
retain the Inalienable right to a Call to Arms to right injustice.
peace.
I suspect that the 45% of the folks in the blue states that voted
Republican won't go peacefully and Republicans have more guns.
you may be right. they have a Constitutional duty to obey the will of
the Majority on the matter of secession.
Do you feel you have a Constitutional duty to obey the dictates of
George Bush? Most of the governors of the blue states are Republicans
as well. I find it hard to believe that the majority of any state
would vote for secession over the results of a presidential race.
I would equally defend the South's right of the majority to leave the
Union and form a more socially Conservative society.
Why would they want to do that? They won.
I support the Constitution (Rule of Law) First.
my political positions are a distant third of fourth.
10th remains, Any State has the right to leave the Union. Just as the
South in 1861 had the Legal Right to leave, all States today retain that
right.
the 10th was never repealed.
Seems only Libertarians beleive in State's Rights today.
Reichpugs now only worship Force, and ignore Rights of the
weaker............thugs.
Democrats never did beleive in State's Rights.
sad..............nobody respects our Constitution and the need for the
Balances of Powers it inumerates..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "gaffo" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
19 Dec 2004 02:23:00 PM |
|
|
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:09:08 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 02:22:29 GMT, gaffo <gaffo@usenet.net> wrote:
Captain Compassion wrote:
NeoSecessionism NYT Magazine
New York Times Magazine ^ | 12-12-04 | JACK HITT
Neo-Secessionism By JACK HITT New York Times Published: December 12,
2004
Enraged by the president's war and still angry about the last
election, the Massachusetts Legislature recently called for a special
meeting of New England states to consider secession from the country.
Recent, that is, if 1814 is recent. That year, at the Hartford
Convention, delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New Hampshire and Vermont toyed with an idea the country would hear a
good bit more of half a century later: that secession was a right,
embedded in the Constitution.
These days, in the wake of George W. Bush's re-election, talk of
secession is once again whipping through the New England states.
Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states. One Internet pamphleteer argued: ''In the middle of the
country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the
fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are
fabulous.'' A proposed map showing the United States of Canada just
above ''JesusLand'' has become an instant Internet classic.
Paul Lewis, professor of English at Boston College, has written
several articles exploring secession and the logical step beyond. Last
year he noted that ''Gore's states are contiguous either to Canada or
to other Gore states,'' except New Mexico. ''In the most peaceful and
democratic way, without invoking images of Jefferson Davis and Robert
E. Lee, these states need to secede from the Union, reform into
provinces and join Canada.''
When contacted, old secession organizations in the Deep South were
quick with advice. ''I've heard about this,'' said Michael Hill,
president of the League of the South, which advocates the modern
secession of old Dixie. ''I say to the Yankee states, 'Go, and be in a
hurry about it.''' Growing serious, Hill observed that there isn't
really a red-state-blue-state divide. If you examine the map closely,
many counties in blue states are red. By population, the real divide
is rural versus urban. ''I would encourage them to start secession
groups in the cities,'' he said. ''I've always liked the city-state
idea. It worked quite well in the Middle Ages.''
But if it didn't work out, and there had to be a War of Southern
Aggression to save the Union, Hill saw some good even in that. ''We
could go up there and get back some of the stolen silverware they
looted from our ancestors 140 years ago.'' ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger
"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion
"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
10th is clear.
Secession was and remains legal.
As long as the means of leaving the Union is democratically done, and
the Natural Law rights of the State's inhabitants are not violated (i.e.
the Ninth is respected).
of course if the State leaves the Union democratically and then abuses
it's Powers over her People - The People (as all Peoples of the World)
retain the Inalienable right to a Call to Arms to right injustice.
peace.
I suspect that the 45% of the folks in the blue states that voted
Republican won't go peacefully and Republicans have more guns.
you may be right. they have a Constitutional duty to obey the will of
the Majority on the matter of secession.
Do you feel you have a Constitutional duty to obey the dictates of
George Bush?
"Constitutional Duty"?? ***** no!! - I may a person sense of duty to do
so, however.
I din't BTW - just defining the types of "Duties" we all have.
I have no "Constitutional Duty" to even defend the US Constitution
either!! She will get my defense from my personal conviction ( a
conviction of choice born of freewill and the love of freedom - not
conviction by law!)
Only elected officials/public servants have a duty to defend the United
State's Constitution - for they made an Oath to do so.
I have made such an Oath - to my State's Consitituton - she is in the
Union and so by extention I'm bound by honour to defend my Federal
Constitution.
No - not by Law, for Honour is not Law.
....................as to the office of Governorship and the Presidency:
NO CITIZEN is mandated by Law to obey the dictates of any person in
those positions of authority - there is no mandate in our Constitution
as such. Quite the opposite in fact! Our Constitution mandates that THEY
(gov/pres) serve the People!!
..................have has no compulsion to obey or support a President
how has violated Article Six.
Most of the governors of the blue states are Republicans
as well.
yes - so?
I find it hard to believe that the majority of any state
would vote for secession over the results of a presidential race.
yes - in the real world this will never happen. Their constitutional
Right to do so remains however.
I also have no doubt that any President in power at the time would
ignore this Constitutional right and illegally send in the National
Guard (in effect ***** upon the Rule of Law - choosing "order" above "law").
I would equally defend the South's right of the majority to leave the
Union and form a more socially Conservative society.
Why would they want to do that? They won.
- indeed - good point!!
--
The courts have unanimously (and erroneously) refused to let defense
attorneys argue for nullification, typically by insisting that the jury
has no power to consider what the law should be, and that juries have no
lawful task but to decide whether the defendant broke the law. Yet, in a
fit of sheer inconsistency, the same federal courts of appeals are also
unanimous that it is permissible for prosecutors to urge juries to act
as the "conscience of the community" and use their verdict to "send a
message" about whether society should be willing to tolerate the
defendant's alleged conduct. James J. Duane, "What Message Are We
Sending to Criminal Jurors When We Ask Them to 'Send a Message' With
Their Verdict?," 22 Am. J. Crim. Law 565, 576-79 (1995).
The Sixth Amendment creates a right for the defendant to insist on a
jury to act as a community conscience and protect him from government
oppression, and yet only the State is allowed, when it chooses, to ask
the jury to consider matters of morality and conscience. Id. at 590-602.
Thus have we witnessed a complete perversion of the constitutional
priorities and structure.
One might fairly summarize the case law this way: "You may hope that the
jury will refuse to apply a harsh, unfair, or inequitable law, but you
may not urge them to do so." Steven Lubet, Modern Trial Advocacy 436 (1993)
If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power
of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as
given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence...If the jury feels that
the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent
circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason
which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to
acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.
4th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States v. Moylan, 1969
[The jury has an] unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge...The
pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its
prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the
judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Unites States v. Dougherty, 1972
It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty...to find the verdict
according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience,
though in direct opposition to the directionof the court.
John Adams, 1771
......it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law
arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the
subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to
any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the
judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law
and fact.
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia," 1782
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand,presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still
both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to
take it upon yourselves to judge of both,and to determine the law as
well as the fact in controversy.
Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
Jurors should acquit, even against the judge's instruction...if
exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear
conviction that the charge of the court is wrong.
Alexander Hamilton, 1804
The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law
and the facts.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
13 Dec 2004 02:29:41 PM |
|
|
from captain compassion:
"Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states..."
______________________________
I can just hear 'em now: "Please! Please take my state!"
"Don't leave us surrounded by them red jobbers!"
"How about taking us individual blue counties?"
I guess this does point out just how many of those East-coast liberals are
loyal Americans, huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "veteran" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
14 Dec 2004 10:06:48 AM |
|
|
In article <VYmvd.4042$N%6.719@trnddc05>,
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
"Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states..."
Naw. It's "Cascadia" fashioned after E.Callenbach's "Ecotopia"
search. Cascadia
Patriotism is supporting your country all
the time and the government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
14 Dec 2004 10:14:27 AM |
|
|
"veteran" <georgew.k@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgew.k-A05553.08064814122004@corp.supernews.com...
In article <VYmvd.4042$N%6.719@trnddc05>,
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
"Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states..."
Naw. It's "Cascadia" fashioned after E.Callenbach's "Ecotopia"
search. Cascadia
Patriotism is supporting your country all
the time and the government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
It's just some children or adults who have
not yet matured "floating" this *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Gibbons" |
|
| Title: Re: Neo-Secessionism |
14 Dec 2004 11:47:44 PM |
|
|
In article <ggEvd.76988$Dm2.76435@bignews1.bellsouth.net>,
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"veteran" <georgew.k@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:georgew.k-A05553.08064814122004@corp.supernews.com...
In article <VYmvd.4042$N%6.719@trnddc05>,
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote:
"Proposals are being floated for a ''Coastopia'' that unites the West
Coast and East Coast blue states along with a few select heartland
states..."
Naw. It's "Cascadia" fashioned after E.Callenbach's "Ecotopia"
search. Cascadia
Patriotism is supporting your country all
the time and the government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
It's just some children or adults who have
not yet matured "floating" this *****.
Everybody I read talking about it is a delusional right wing nut job.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
