So I found out about Montana threatening to secede from the Union if DC vs Heller rules for "collective rights". I think I may want them to rule that way now.

Will Montana have the fortitude to really secede? Will it provoke other states to secede as well? Would the federal government try to retake Montana by force? That would be ... I mean wow... I can't even begin to describe the sort of chaos that would start.

If Montana did become its own nation .... think about how much better it would be than the US:
- They'd instantly opt out of the $9 trillion US debt and supporting the unaffordable US programs like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.
- Montana is like one big coal deposit. They'd be 100% energy independent. Gas would be about $2.00/gallon there (conversion of coal to oil ends up at $60/barrel ... vs current price of over $125/barrel). They would (haha!) export coal to the US, because the US uses coal for over 70% of domestic energy production.
- They could have their own currency ... backed by gold. They would become the Swiss Banking System of the west.
- Any energy needing corporation would setup shop there due to their huge energy reserves.
- All the Libertarian "free" collectives out there (Free State Project in NH, other efforts overseas) would make a beeline to Montana, as it's already a Libertarian leaning state.

This is terribly fascinating to me.

I would love it if a bunch of states (all) secede and we ended with a loose confederation of independent states. Just basically mutual defense and trade with no federal level power.

Jugnaut Wrote:I would love it if a bunch of states (all) secede and we ended with a loose confederation of independent states. Just basically mutual defense and trade with no federal level power.

I'm game. Anyone south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the western Texas border. Blue-Staters like RobertN would be elated anyway. That way, he could do his part in turning his new country into the Socialist paradise he longs for. You know, like Cuba and Venezuela.

....and I have seen this point made at DU many times. After '00 and '04 they want us to get the hell out of "their" country. Not a problem, libs.

Secession has been tried before. You being from Georgia should know how that turned out.

BuckeyeStu Wrote:Secession has been tried before. You being from Georgia should know how that turned out.

Yeah, a whole lotta Yankees got killed.

They won't succeed, nor would they be allowed. To even take this seriously is crazy...

mlb Wrote:They won't succeed, nor would they be allowed. To even take this seriously is crazy...

History, and I don't restrict this just to American history, doesn't favor your contention.

Want to bet on whether they actually succeed?

mlb Wrote:Want to bet on whether they actually succeed?

Succeed? Or Secede?

If we secede, there's a good chance we'll succeed. Most liberals don't want these Southern states hindering their plans for a Socialistic utopia anyway. This region, along with the midwest states, are the only reason this country hasn't become a full-blown Socialist nation.

Besides, we have the guns.

Alright... sorry for my bad typing. Want to bet whether they secede or not?

Collective rights has been the interpretation for over 200 years, it would only affirm existing statutes. Why would maintaining the status quo be a reason to secede?

Tommyboy Wrote:Collective rights has been the interpretation for over 200 years, it would only affirm existing statutes. Why would maintaining the status quo be a reason to secede?

Uhhh ... no. The Supreme Court has never ruled on collective vs. individual. Stupid liberal cesspools like DC however have decided to force their own interpretation. But that does not change the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution, or MONTANA'S statehood contract.

If they do it, I know one nurse with 14 years critical care and flight experience who is gonna move there ASAP!!!

Tommyboy Wrote:Collective rights has been the interpretation for over 200 years, it would only affirm existing statutes. Why would maintaining the status quo be a reason to secede?

WTH? Where did you get that from? The entire bill of rights is based on individual liberty.

Rebel Wrote:

BuckeyeStu Wrote:Secession has been tried before. You being from Georgia should know how that turned out.

Yeah, a whole lotta Yankees got killed.

indeed they did. I don't think the west coast or the north would really give a **** if the south and midwest left and formed an independent mutual union. but thats just me. I'm fairly confident that the ban will be abolished along with some other more "Controversial" issues will be overturned as well. and besides Kev Texas is just looking for an excuse and Oklahoma would probably go with texas.

We shoulda just kept out independance. Republic of Texas, a soverign country, 1836-1845.

The annexation resolution has been the topic of some incorrect historical beliefs—one that remains is that the resolution granted Texas the explicit right to secede from the Union. This was a right argued by some to be implicitly held by all states at the time, up until the conclusion of the Civil War. The resolution did include two unique provisions: first, it said that up to four additional states could be created from Texas' territory, with the consent of the State of Texas. The resolution did not include any special exceptions to the provisions of the US Constitution regarding statehood. The right to create these possible new states was not "reserved" for Texas, as is sometimes stated. [2]. Second, Texas did not have to surrender its public lands to the federal government. While Texas did cede all territory outside of its current area to the federal government in 1850, it did not cede any public lands within its current boundaries. This means that generally, the only lands owned by the federal government within Texas have actually been purchased by the government. This also means that the state government has control over oil reserves which were later used to fund the state's public university system. In addition, the state's control over offshore oil reserves in Texas runs out to 3 leagues (10.357 miles, 16.668 km) rather than three miles (4.828 km) as with other states [3].

Pfft, secession is a dead-end, falsely promising escape from a world plagued by an intrusive government, lousy schools, higher taxes, rising crime, racial tensions and or (insert your pet grievance here). Such problems are rarely stopped by political borders.

The answer is not secession, but for the State Of Montana to enact laws and governance, or repeal laws and governance, in line with both the federal government and the desires of the population of Montana. The mechanisms for your Libertarian paradise are already in place.

The easier actions are myriad, but seemingly not as sexy as a shout for "Seccesion!"

Rebel Wrote:

Jugnaut Wrote:I would love it if a bunch of states (all) secede and we ended with a loose confederation of independent states. Just basically mutual defense and trade with no federal level power.

I'm game. Anyone south of the Mason-Dixon line and east of the western Texas border. Blue-Staters like RobertN would be elated anyway. That way, he could do his part in turning his new country into the Socialist paradise he longs for. You know, like Cuba and Venezuela.

....and I have seen this point made at DU many times. After '00 and '04 they want us to get the hell out of "their" country. Not a problem, libs.

You know damn well Im for secession. I could live with a local and state governments. That way I could choose to live in the one that gave me the most liberty. People could even choose to live under marxist rule if they so "choose" to. Id head for whatever state the anarchists decided to go to

Rebel Wrote:

Tommyboy Wrote:Collective rights has been the interpretation for over 200 years, it would only affirm existing statutes. Why would maintaining the status quo be a reason to secede?

WTH? Where did you get that from? The entire bill of rights is based on individual liberty.

The Bill of Rights only in effect between an individual and the Federal government. Or has it been collectively administered to the individual states as well? Sounds like collective rights to me...

uhmump95 Wrote:The Bill of Rights only in effect between an individual and the Federal government. Or has it been collectively administered to the individual states as well? Sounds like collective rights to me...

The Bill of Rights has not one damn thing to do with the states. Without the Bill of Rights, limiting the federal government on what it could do to individuals, the Constitution would have been at a dead end because Jefferson refused to support it without it's inclusion. States rights are delineated in the US Constitution itself.