exguru // Jul 24, 2010 at 5:51 pm I don’t think he will have to take Tennessee out of the union. The entire U.S. is ALREADY fed up with Obamacare, so it will leave us instead of our having to leave it.

Real World:

The Kaiser Family Foundation is the latest survey outlet to see positive movement on the health-care reform bill. In their May poll, 41 percent approved of the bill and 44 percent didn’t. Their June poll has flipped to 48 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval. That’s the fourth poll in a row to show improving numbers for the legislation: The AP and Gallup polls both flipped from plurality disapproval to plurality approval, and the NBC/WSJ poll registered a slight (2 percent, which is within the margin of error) improvement in the bill’s numbers, but remained at plurality disapproval.

“This is actually a good example of why the argument for strictly following the actual text of the Constitution is important. ”

That’s why you have to advocate for the dissolution of the standing Army, if you’re a StraightEdge Literalist which is the underpinning of the 10thers, IMO. Absolute literal interpretation of the Constitution means you have to be for the dissolution of the Army as a standing entity.
Yes, the Federal Government has a duty toward National Defense . . . but the language of the document directly proscribes some of the details about how they go about that. For example, Congress has the authority to “maintain” a Navy. That means they are expressly permitted to keep it running. The difference in language between what the Constitution says about the Navy (“provide and maintain”) and the Army (“raise and support”, with a 2yr funding cap) mean (literally) that there can be a standing Navy BUT Armies are only raised as needed (you “raise” them, which if you were “maintaining” one you’d only do once). Combine that with the 2nd Amendment dealing with militias (the source of the bodies for an Army raised) and its clear that literally there should be no US Army.
So what’s the big deal? They aren’t actually prohibited from having an Army, right? Well, here’s a direct proscription:

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
Art. I, Sec. 8

The militia form the body of any raised Army . . . and the power to appoint officers is literally and explicitly reserved for the States. What State appointed Patreaus a General? Guess he just lost his command. Also, we have to close all Basic Training Camps immediately — that is explicitly a States right (Authority).

No American could ever be for that kind of interpretation of the Constitution. NOBODY is for absolutely literal interpretation of the Constitution . . . including the Founding Fathers. Even Scalia doesn’t pretend to be sitting in the 18th century when he thinks about cases. That may be Literally what it says, but the Founding Fathers wanted the system to work rather than fail with obedience.
Even Strict Constructionalists aren’t for THAT strict an interpretation. So yes, there is some literal objective merit to “The Federal Government only has the authority to defend and deliver mail” (an exageration) but I don’t see why it’s being given serious consideration as a policy option. Anarchy is cool on paper too . . . but I don’t actually want to try it.

“Unfortunately, both parties ignore the Constitution when it suits them. The 10th amendment is ignored much like limits on federal power that would have stopped the Patriot Act if people took the language seriously.”

Agreed, Agreed, a thousand times Agreed.

**pure subjective bitching mode engaged**

The 10thers aren’t for “Literal Interpretation” . . . they are for nullifying anything they don’t like the Federal Government doing. They aren’t talking about stopping the Medicare payments of farm subsidies (unless they aren’t personally getting one or the other), but tell me I can’t make students kneel and pray? 10th Amendment! Like you said, it’s “pick and choose” and both sides do it no question. But much like the secsession talk, its a massively extreme remedy to even mention. Like the people mentioning “well, we can cap the oil leak with a nuke”. Why would you even suggest that at this stage of the ballgame? Secsession is a nuke. Nullification of vast swathes of the existing Government that keeps America running (like it or not) is a serious nuke.

10thers IMO act like in the last almost 250 years nobody noticed the 10th Amendment before. No God-damn kidding that’s what it says! Amazing how none of the “what do these words mean” procedures we’ve used for hundreds (and if you go into common law tradition, thousands) of years to function as a society of laws has ever been applied to the 10th Amendment. How DID the Federal Government justify things like the EPA? Amazing that question never came up before. Those silly legislators, judges, attorneys, and centuries of considered opinions based on fact, law and history! Somebody should look into this.

There is a saying in the law — “a little bit of knowledge is a very dangerous thing”. All of these 10ther issues have been, are being, and will be resolved accoring to our most reliable methods. The 10thers aren’t concerned because they don’t think anybody but them can read . . . they’re pissed that they lose some calls. The same-sex marriage trial out here in California is almost done, and given the closing arguments it looks like the SSM ban is going down. People are going to complain about “activist” judging and Socialism and all sorts of “that’s not how government functions” nonsense. What they really mean is “I wanted to win”. I understand that, but too bad. You win some, you lose some. They might not like the result, but their argument was weak regardless of whether it was “right” or “correct”. Remember Terry Schaivo? The Judge absolutely, clearly, perfectly followed the law . . . and he was so villified that he was asked to leave his Church. It’s petulance.
That’s just the way it works, and its IMO absolutely the best possible system for doing things properly. We shouldn’t screw with it like the 10thers want to.

Except the Constitution defines national defense as a function of the federal government, not the states. Raising and disbanding armies, declaring war, and so on, are clear federal powers.

So a 10th amendment argument wouldn’t apply to armies and the Patriot Act because those are defense functions.

I agree with you 100% the Patriot Act is an abomination, but Bush, Cheney and the GOP tried to justify it on national defense grounds. This is actually a good example of why the argument for strictly following the actual text of the Constitution is important. The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the power pass legislation like the Patriot Act which clearly tramples peoples’ Constitutional rights.

Unfortunately, both parties ignore the Constitution when it suits them. The 10th amendment is ignored much like limits on federal power that would have stopped the Patriot Act if people took the language seriously.

busboy // If that’s going to be the answer when our representatives do something we don’t like, why bother having a government? I think the Patriot Act was a legal abomination . . . but I’m stuck with it (to my shame as an American).

I’ll take 10thers seriously when they agree to abolish the standing Army, which was proscribed by the Founding Fathers (see Art.1, Sec.8, the 2nd Amendment and such). If we are going to “pick and choose” when we’ll agree with the Supreme Court and the legal traditions of this country . . . then there isn’t any point in bothering to have a government at all.

So it’s in effect already? Excellent. It’s been almost exactly 100 years since TRoosevelt decided it would be a good idea.

As for secession, I think the teabaggers and their friends should be forced by Barack Hussein Obama to take proper care of themselves and their families whether they like it or not. Cram health care right down their throats for the overall good of the country.

Granted, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t mind seeing them croak but economically it makes no sense to have an unhealthy population. And aren’t we all fiscal conservatives when you get right down to it?

The problem with 10th Amendment discussion is that to alot of people in the audience “10th Amendment” sounds suspiciously like “end run around the democratically elected government”.

Take the health care debate. Has there been any topic in this country’s history that was debated more intensely, more constantly, and more bitterly? For a full year, every single day, the debate raged on radio, on tv, face-to-face. The bill passed. What is the solution? If its a bad bill . . . repeal it, just like Bachmann is proudly campaigning on.

But everybody who is being reasonable about this recognizes that repeal is just not going to happen. The GOP would have to take a super-majority of the House and Senate, and while they might gain some seats in a few months are they going to get 60% of both? That’s so doubtful as to be not a reasonable concern. Even if they DID win a super-majority . . . are all of the GOP going to tell the millions of uninsurable Americans “go back to being excluded”? Again, I just don’t see that happening. So we’ll form a new government!

If that’s going to be the answer when our representatives do something we don’t like, why bother having a government? I think the Patriot Act was a legal abomination . . . but I’m stuck with it (to my shame as an American).

I’ll take 10thers seriously when they agree to abolish the standing Army, which was proscribed by the Founding Fathers (see Art.1, Sec.8, the 2nd Amendment and such). If we are going to “pick and choose” when we’ll agree with the Supreme Court and the legal traditions of this country . . . then there isn’t any point in bothering to have a government at all.

So if Germany wins, no Treaty of Versailles and (probably) no Hitler. The Treaty of Versailles created the toxic environment that let Hitler rise to power. I don’t see how the Nazis gain power without a Weimar climate to exploit.

JonF // Jul 25, 2010 at 10:02 am

Re: No Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, thus no Soviet Union.

Why not? If there’s still a WWI then the tsarist government in Russia still goes under. Also, it’s entirely possible that the USA and CSA end up in different sides of the conflict as in Harry Tutledove’s alternate history where the USA is Germany’s ally.

All excellent points. Secession might spark some interesting speculation but little else.

That’s why this idiot was a fool to bring it up; instead of using dumb rhetoric, he should just stick to making the point that a lot of people are very unhappy with the health plan, which is true. That’s what people who mention secession (Rick Perry) are driving at — dissatisfaction with much of what the FEDGOV does and abuses of federal authority.

Anyway, in addition to issues around fairly dividing infrastructure, there is also the issue of private economic interdependence.

I live in the South but routinely do business in the northeast, so secession would definitely hurt me. In fact, every business in the country probably does business across Blue State/Red State lines, except for very small businesses. So secession would be economically disastrous for everyone.

Maybe what we need us a lot more capitalism and business opportunities for all; you want to see a Limbaugh admirer and an Olbermann admirer to put aside differences fast — give them a chance make some money together.

Another reason it would never work has to do with families; many of us have family all over the country — half my family is a far to the Left as I am to the Right.

So no, it would never work.

Here’s the thing though; we have a Constitutional framework in place right now that would let us solve many difficult problems if people would just take it seriously instead of laughing it off.

It’s called Federalism and the 10th Amendment. (No, this is not a veiled appeal for segregation).

Giving the states a lot more leeway to make the call on some questions, via a serious applicati0n of the 10th amendment, would solve many thorny issues.

Take gay marriage, for example. Every state makes it own rules on the details of marriage anyway. If Vermont and California want gay marriage — fine. But why do Utah and Alabama have to have it?

This is pretty much how it worked for abortion until SCOTUS overturned laws in all 50 states based on a non-existent “right to privacy.” Until that point, it was an issue for the individual states.

If we could go back to that, it would help.

Why not? If there’s still a WWI then the tsarist government in Russia still goes under. Also, it’s entirely possible that the USA and CSA end up in different sides of the conflict as in Harry Tutledove’s alternate history where the USA is Germany’s ally.

The obvious answer is that session isn’t permitted. The Union is like a traditional Catholic marriage — no divorce allowed. It wasn’t “we are a Union until I decide I don’t want to be a Union anymore”. I didn’t like what W did running the country . . . but I’m not allowed to take my ball and leave. Why do I have to suck it up and suffer under the Rights administration, but as soon as they lose fair and square I STILL have to do what they want? Why should I let you walk out of this relationship?
*snide filter engaged*
I thought all you John Wayne Conservatives were real tough and strong. This is “I’m gonna hold my breath until I turn blue!” temper tantrum baloney. Lose the skirt Shirley! You realize the whiny liberals and tree-hugging hippies are looking far more manly and mature than the Right with all of this?
*snide filter disengaged*

On a more practical matter . . . when there IS a divorce, what is the fight always over? Property. Did all those seceeding States pay for their own roads? Did they pay for their Airports? If not, are you gonna pay us back? What about water rights? Does the New Confederacy get the Hoover Dam, or does it stay part of the Union? What about interstate power lines? Rural South and West . . . gonna produce enough food on that farmland? Is the “acrimony” between the factions going to improve if the Union has the Confederacy food supply in a stranglehold?

What are you offering in trade? You want out, then in a divorce its generally acceptable to make it worth the non-initiating party’s time. You get a pre-made country, paid for by my tax dollars. I get . . . what? Not having to listen to complainers complain? Palin and Rush aren’t THAT annoying.

As a theoretical question . . . what are you going to do when Texas decides to seceede from the Confederacy? Let them go with a smile? What if the panhandle decides to seceede from Texas? yes or no?

To solve a very minor and standard problem (there have been dissatisfied citizens since 1776), the proposed solution creates FAR to many new (very real) problems. It’s an interesting theoretical question, but in a real world application . . . no. Not practical.