A State of Jefferson?

[Big Brain City]

All I'm saying is that the liberals of Philadelphia deserve their own state too. They're being drowned out by the conservatives upstate. *nod*

You may jest, but if Philadelphia so desires, it has the requisite amount of people, it is a port of entry, and a history like very few cities on the planet. If the people are up to it, they should not be hindered from doing so. This is America. America is about experimenting with self-government. If they fail the world has learned what does not work, If they succeed it may prompt other cities to cede from their States and join the US as a City-State. I think Narland said something to that effect regarding another city.

The US Senate will become even more like the Galactic Senate then...

[Conserative Morality]

The Gang Runs for Governor I can see it now!

"The democratic vote for me is right thing to do Philadelphia, so DO!"

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

We are not, we are a federation where the states are subordinate to the federal government and the constitution. States do not have unlimited power or sovereignty.

NO, we are a Federal Constitutional Republic where the Federal government does only those things enumerated to it. This is why corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse are rampant in Washington. It tries to do the 10,000s of things reserved to the People, that we already do at the county level. It cannot do the score of things given to it well, and is a failure at the things it is not supposed to be doing.

USC
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Constitution of the State of Idaho
Art 1 Sec 1 INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Art 2 Sec 2 POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.

And just in case that isn't enough, my County passed the Bill of Rights as local ordinance.

YES. See, I can all caps words too.

I'm not sure why you put the 9th amendment in there but that doesn't give the people power to do absolutely whatever they want. And the 10th amendment doesn't give the states the power to do absolutely whatever they want either. There are limits to those powers and that's why the Supremacy Clause is there and why the wording of the amendments state only powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. States cannot usurp the power of the federal government, counties and municipalities cannot usurp the power of the state or the federal government.

[Pensalum]

All I'm saying is that the liberals of Philadelphia deserve their own state too. They're being drowned out by the conservatives upstate. *nod*

You may jest, but if Philadelphia so desires, it has the requisite amount of people, it is a port of entry, and a history like very few cities on the planet. If the people are up to it, they should not be hindered from doing so. This is America. America is about experimenting with self-government. If they fail the world has learned what does not work, If they succeed it may prompt other cities to cede from their States and join the US as a City-State. I think Narland said something to that effect regarding another city.

In the effort to avoid the obvious slippery slope I'm not going to say what immediately comes to mind. Still, even Upper Darby (a suburb of Philadelphia) meets the population requirement, and I'm sure other 'burbs do as well. Surely that doesn't justify statehood. We should grow further together, not separate further apart.

The Gang Runs for Governor I can see it now!

"The democratic vote for me is right thing to do Philadelphia, so DO!"

Well there you go, we're in good hands!

[Finaglia]

No, as in if both the Marines (who had come in to side with Bundy and set snipers on the BLM snipers)

Source?

One of my neighbors was there and saw it. If I am going to believe anybody, it is someone that I have known for a few years and known to be honest over anything on C-SPAN, but hear is a URL
https://archive.org/details/MarinesWere ... BundyRanch
National Press Club, C-SPAN, 17 September 2014 -- Stewart Rhodes --

[Finaglia]

NO, we are a Federal Constitutional Republic where the Federal government does only those things enumerated to it. This is why corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse are rampant in Washington. It tries to do the 10,000s of things reserved to the People, that we already do at the county level. It cannot do the score of things given to it well, and is a failure at the things it is not supposed to be doing.

USC
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Constitution of the State of Idaho
Art 1 Sec 1 INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Art 2 Sec 2 POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.



And just in case that isn't enough, my County passed the Bill of Rights as local ordinance.

YES. See, I can all caps words too.

I'm not sure why you put the 9th amendment in there but that doesn't give the people power to do absolutely whatever they want. And the 10th amendment doesn't give the states the power to do absolutely whatever they want either. There are limits to those powers and that's why the Supremacy Clause is there and why the wording of the amendments state only powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. States cannot usurp the power of the federal government, counties and municipalities cannot usurp the power of the state or the federal government.

The caps are how they were ratified. That is how they are. Pre-internet stuff.

[Conserative Morality]

One of my neighbors was there and saw it. If I am going to believe anybody, it is someone that I have known for a few years and known to be honest over anything on C-SPAN, but hear is a URL
https://archive.org/details/MarinesWere ... BundyRanch
National Press Club, C-SPAN, 17 September 2014 -- Stewart Rhodes --

So all you have is a youtube video by the Oath Keepers?

Right.

[Finaglia]

You may jest, but if Philadelphia so desires, it has the requisite amount of people, it is a port of entry, and a history like very few cities on the planet. If the people are up to it, they should not be hindered from doing so. This is America. America is about experimenting with self-government. If they fail the world has learned what does not work, If they succeed it may prompt other cities to cede from their States and join the US as a City-State. I think Narland said something to that effect regarding another city.

In the effort to avoid the obvious slippery slope I'm not going to say what immediately comes to mind. Still, even Upper Darby (a suburb of Philadelphia) meets the population requirement, and I'm sure other 'burbs do as well. Surely that doesn't justify statehood. We should grow further together, not separate further apart.

"The democratic vote for me is right thing to do Philadelphia, so DO!"

Well there you go, we're in good hands!

Heavens no! Some places should never be a state in its own right. Philadelphia is in a good position should it so desire.

Boise Idaho for instance has no natural port, no strong industry other than government to sustain itself, and thinks that One Way Streets are a good thing--4 in a row in one spot. That should disqualify it right there.

[Finaglia]

One of my neighbors was there and saw it. If I am going to believe anybody, it is someone that I have known for a few years and known to be honest over anything on C-SPAN, but hear is a URL
https://archive.org/details/MarinesWere ... BundyRanch
National Press Club, C-SPAN, 17 September 2014 -- Stewart Rhodes --

So all you have is a youtube video by the Oath Keepers?

Right.

Again, I had a neighbor who was there. I trust him over C-SPAN any day. But you wanted a source.

I have to head to bed. Nice chatting with you all. Have a good night.

[San Lumen]

It still seems like some people on here think rural areas should have more say that urban areas. People like Free Missouri. Everything they are saying is anti urban area to a insane degree all way to they should be cut off from the state to given less representation to be being depopulated by cutting off water. What is the disagreement with Reynolds V Sims other than rural areas have different values and more people and outvote the rest of the state? That's how democracy works.

[Theodolia]

Again, this isnt a Democracy. Democracies are failures as soon as people figure out they can live off of other people's money if they can get 50% + 1 to side with. This (the US) is an experiment in self-governance and Liberty with equality under the Law (under Law, not of outcome) as a Federal Constitutional Republic. That means that as municipalities, counties and states we govern ourselves and no other. That means that the cities govern themselves and no other. That means that the powers delegated to government to do specific things, do those things and no other. We in the rural areas have retained this tradition of self-government much longer, and the concepts seem to have have been lost in the cities and suburbs. It has precipitated into a cultural war, and if urban America continues to interfere with our lawful self-governments, may very well become a very uncivil.

This is the United States of America - municipalities, counties and states have many powers but they, and we, are united under a common system. You don't seem to understand that. We are a democratic republic, that is a fact. I don't know where this "republic, not a democracy" shtick comes from.

It's being used pretty blatantly to try and justify undemocratic reforms too

[USS Donald Trump]

if they become a state, Puerto Rico must be given a state, and the US should find another state somewhere.

"Indivisible", and 53 is a prime number.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

If Jefferson becomes a state then Charlotte gets to succeed from North Carolina.

[Free Missouri]

I vote at nearly every election (a few off elections caught me by surprise), When I farmed I paid relatively large amounts into the treasury of my State and to DC. Now that I am of modest means I pay what is due. I know how to govern myself, and take my civic responsibility as an American very seriously, as to my neighbors. My county comprises almost 2000 square miles and almost 8000 residents. We the 8000 and I have plenty of say as who we are as a county--which IS part of this country because this is a Federal Constitutional Republic where those who can take responsibility for themselves get to govern themselves. This isn't a democracy, and it certainly isn't socialist quagmire--at least not yet.

And again, I ask, why do you and your 8000 neighbors get more of a right to say what America is than I have or my several millions of neighbors? Where does that come from? It sure as hell doesn't come from being superior to me in any way. We are equals in society and should get equal say in what America is. And while you are right that this is a federal constitutional republic, that doesn't mean that "those who can take responsibility for themselves get to govern themselves." That means that there are restrictions on the actions and laws that can be enacted by the government.

May I ask why the Urbanites who are definitely anti-individualist should have more of a right to say how WE Live our lives simply because they outnumber us? Why, simply because the Urbanites outbumber us, WE should have to contend with idiotic, inefficient, and otherwise counterintuitive and draconian gun laws like the Assault Weapons Ban? Why we should have to deal with the cities forcing solar and wind on places where we have neither the land, nor the conditions necessary for those energy sources by attacking the clean, safe and reliable nuclear and at the same time making coal and natural gas untenable? Why we should, simply because the urban areas are more populated, be forced to be governed by a nanny state simply because Urban society is incapable of living without the government controlling their water, power, food, transportation, weapons, and everything else?

[Free Missouri]

All in all I say this: The people in the state of Jefferson have the right to self-determination, one which I think we, as AMERICANS, for fucks sake, should not only respect, but hold dear. If they view that the Government of California no longer holds the consent of theirselves to be governed, they have the RIGHT to "dissolve the political bands which connect them to another" In this case, removing their status as counties within one state and forming a new state.

[San Lumen]

And again, I ask, why do you and your 8000 neighbors get more of a right to say what America is than I have or my several millions of neighbors? Where does that come from? It sure as hell doesn't come from being superior to me in any way. We are equals in society and should get equal say in what America is. And while you are right that this is a federal constitutional republic, that doesn't mean that "those who can take responsibility for themselves get to govern themselves." That means that there are restrictions on the actions and laws that can be enacted by the government.

May I ask why the Urbanites who are definitely anti-individualist should have more of a right to say how WE Live our lives simply because they outnumber us? Why, simply because the Urbanites outbumber us, WE should have to contend with idiotic, inefficient, and otherwise counterintuitive and draconian gun laws like the Assault Weapons Ban? Why we should have to deal with the cities forcing solar and wind on places where we have neither the land, nor the conditions necessary for those energy sources by attacking the clean, safe and reliable nuclear and at the same time making coal and natural gas untenable? Why we should, simply because the urban areas are more populated, be forced to be governed by a nanny state simply because Urban society is incapable of living without the government controlling their water, power, food, transportation, weapons, and everything else?

Because a democracy works on the basis of who has the most votes and representation based on population. Why should a rural county in California or Oregon get the same or more representation than Portland or Los Angeles or San Francisco? No one is dictating anything to anyone. It's how the government works. Why do you disagree with Reynolds v Sims? Go read Justice Warren's opinion and tell me why you disagree with him? Should rural counties have more votes for Senator or president too and be able to outvote the urbanites you so despise?

[Narland]

Again, this isnt a Democracy. Democracies are failures as soon as people figure out they can live off of other people's money if they can get 50% + 1 to side with. This (the US) is an experiment in self-governance and Liberty with equality under the Law (under Law, not of outcome) as a Federal Constitutional Republic. That means that as municipalities, counties and states we govern ourselves and no other. That means that the cities govern themselves and no other. That means that the powers delegated to government to do specific things, do those things and no other. We in the rural areas have retained this tradition of self-government much longer, and the concepts seem to have have been lost in the cities and suburbs. It has precipitated into a cultural war, and if urban America continues to interfere with our lawful self-governments, may very well become a very uncivil.

This is the United States of America - municipalities, counties and states have many powers but they, and we, are united under a common system. You don't seem to understand that. We are a democratic republic, that is a fact. I don't know where this "republic, not a democracy" shtick comes from.

In the US our basic law (the Constitution) guarantees that every state will have a Republic form of government to all its citizens (US Constitution Article 4 Section 4).

A territory or trust of the United States cannot become a State unless it is republican (little r)--has a republican form of government). (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html) Note: Every elected Senator and Congressman gets an updated version of this when they are elected, and I highly recommend it.

Citizenship tests ask what form of government we have. The correct answer is republic. The answer of democracy is incorrect.

Kids in public school (that are allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance), pledges to the flag of the USA and to the Republic for which it stands.

These are all quotes from the Founding Fathers in the form of government that was established. We have democratic processes within this form, but this is very different from the form of a Democracy. Those areas where we have become most corrupt is in our failure to maintain republic governance in guaranteeing to every person their rights. In a Democracy the majority can stamp on the rights of the minority. In a Republic the majority can only rule with respect to the rights of minority and their self-governance.

The delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest . . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind (Federalist No. 63).

[Pure democracies] have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths (Federalist No. 10)

We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy. - Alexander Hamilton

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. — Thomas Jefferson

The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. -Thomas Jefferson

There is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; for the true idea of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.' That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics - John Adams

But between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” — John Marshal

Let the American youth never forget that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils and sufferings and blood of their ancestors, and capable, if wisely improved and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to the latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence. The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid, its compartments are beautiful as well as useful, its arrangements are full of wisdom and order, and its defenses are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of men may justly aspire to such a title. It may nevertheless perish in an hour by the folly, or corruption, or negligence of its only keepers, the People. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them. — Joseph Story (Commentaries on the Constitution)

Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country. --Noah Webster, (On the Education of Youth in America)

I highly recommend reading these to get a better understanding of what is meant by republican self-governance.

Common Sense by Paine,
Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the US, and the Ordinances of 1784 and 1787.
The Federalist Papers
Yale's and Joseph Story''s Commentaries on the Constitution,
George Washington's Inaugural Address, State of the Union Addresses, and his Farewell Address
Noah Webster's On Education
Rules of Civility - Richard Brookhiser
Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography
The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Louis Ketcham
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/foundi ... -s-library
http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/reading2.htm
George Washington and Noah Webster had recommended reading lists but I cannot find them at this time.

No president ever called the US a democracy until Wilson and the ill-conceived "Making the World Safe For Democracy" that every president except Reagan, and for a short time Kennedy refused to follow. Obama promised to stop following the Rhodes playbook, but something happened where he let Hilary continue with foreign policy business as usual. At the time of Wilson's Presidency, the US Army training manual considered Democracy seditious.

[Liberaxia]

We are not, we are a federation where the states are subordinate to the federal government and the constitution. States do not have unlimited power or sovereignty.

NO, we are a Federal Constitutional Republic where the Federal government does only those things enumerated to it. This is why corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse are rampant in Washington. It tries to do the 10,000s of things reserved to the People, that we already do at the county level. It cannot do the score of things given to it well, and is a failure at the things it is not supposed to be doing.

USC
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Constitution of the State of Idaho
Art 1 Sec 1 INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Art 2 Sec 2 POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.

And just in case that isn't enough, my County passed the Bill of Rights as local ordinance.

We're a federal republic, but the states are most definitely not sovereign.

[Liberaxia]

And again, I ask, why do you and your 8000 neighbors get more of a right to say what America is than I have or my several millions of neighbors? Where does that come from? It sure as hell doesn't come from being superior to me in any way. We are equals in society and should get equal say in what America is. And while you are right that this is a federal constitutional republic, that doesn't mean that "those who can take responsibility for themselves get to govern themselves." That means that there are restrictions on the actions and laws that can be enacted by the government.

May I ask why the Urbanites who are definitely anti-individualist should have more of a right to say how WE Live our lives simply because they outnumber us? Why, simply because the Urbanites outbumber us, WE should have to contend with idiotic, inefficient, and otherwise counterintuitive and draconian gun laws like the Assault Weapons Ban? Why we should have to deal with the cities forcing solar and wind on places where we have neither the land, nor the conditions necessary for those energy sources by attacking the clean, safe and reliable nuclear and at the same time making coal and natural gas untenable? Why we should, simply because the urban areas are more populated, be forced to be governed by a nanny state simply because Urban society is incapable of living without the government controlling their water, power, food, transportation, weapons, and everything else?

You want to force your views on everyone else, too.

[Narland]

NO, we are a Federal Constitutional Republic where the Federal government does only those things enumerated to it. This is why corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse are rampant in Washington. It tries to do the 10,000s of things reserved to the People, that we already do at the county level. It cannot do the score of things given to it well, and is a failure at the things it is not supposed to be doing.

USC
Amendment IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.
Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Constitution of the State of Idaho
Art 1 Sec 1 INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.

Art 2 Sec 2 POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.

And just in case that isn't enough, my County passed the Bill of Rights as local ordinance.

We're a federal republic, but the states are most definitely not sovereign.

Correct the sovereignty in every state (including the Federal state) resides in the people. I believe that is the point of Finanglia's post. It is written in the law of the land and in the law of every state, and is a hallmark of Republican governance.

[Liberaxia]

We're a federal republic, but the states are most definitely not sovereign.

Correct the sovereignty in every state (including the Federal state) resides in the people. I believe that is the point of Finanglia's post. It is written in the law of the land and in the law of every state, and is a hallmark of Republican governance.

Ah, no. While that is a lovely dream, it is nothing more than a platitude. In political science, the United States (or, depending on you want to word this, the federal government) is sovereign.

[Narland]

Correct the sovereignty in every state (including the Federal state) resides in the people. I believe that is the point of Finanglia's post. It is written in the law of the land and in the law of every state, and is a hallmark of Republican governance.

Ah, no. While that is a lovely dream, it is nothing more than a platitude. In political science, the United States (or, depending on you want to word this, the federal government) is sovereign.

As a Federal Republic it is only sovereign in the 20 enumerated functions. Those who insist that we be controlled from the top down with a command economy (in the broad sense, not just financial economic sense) are pushing us to the brink of civil war. As you know a Federal Republic by definition is limited government where the sovereignty is divided amongst it constituent parts and in the case of the US the caveat is that the people retain the right to fire their government and recreate their state of governance when their public servants become abusive to ends of Lawful self-governant, rule of law, or deprivation of the rights of the People.

[House of Judah]

And again, I ask, why do you and your 8000 neighbors get more of a right to say what America is than I have or my several millions of neighbors? Where does that come from? It sure as hell doesn't come from being superior to me in any way. We are equals in society and should get equal say in what America is. And while you are right that this is a federal constitutional republic, that doesn't mean that "those who can take responsibility for themselves get to govern themselves." That means that there are restrictions on the actions and laws that can be enacted by the government.

May I ask why the Urbanites who are definitely anti-individualist should have more of a right to say how WE Live our lives simply because they outnumber us? Why, simply because the Urbanites outbumber us, WE should have to contend with idiotic, inefficient, and otherwise counterintuitive and draconian gun laws like the Assault Weapons Ban? Why we should have to deal with the cities forcing solar and wind on places where we have neither the land, nor the conditions necessary for those energy sources by attacking the clean, safe and reliable nuclear and at the same time making coal and natural gas untenable? Why we should, simply because the urban areas are more populated, be forced to be governed by a nanny state simply because Urban society is incapable of living without the government controlling their water, power, food, transportation, weapons, and everything else?

Well for starters, those are the agreed upon rules that we have established. Let's not forget that when you come down to it, there really isn't such a thing as a 'right'. The 'rights' we enjoy can be taken away by a constitutional amendment (a difficult proposition these days to be sure, but still possible), and, to quote the late great George Carlin,[quote=George Carlin]Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. [/quote] The 'rights' that we have are just privileges that, at some point, a supermajority of our population agreed should be more greatly protected than a 50%+1 majority would offer. The "right to be left alone" that you claim is certainly not one of them. Why should you have to abide by an assault weapons ban? Because the overwhelming majority of people are put at risk from easy access to assault weapons. Why should you have to rely on solar and wind instead of nuclear? Hey, I agree with using nuclear power but I recognize that we need an actual plan for the disposal of spent fuel, a planned maintenance system that allows for a reactor plant to be shutdown for periodic upkeep, repairs, and upgrades without plunging an area into darkness. In the meantime, the public at large is scared of nuclear power and it's not without good reason. That trepidation comes from a long history of dishonesty from the industry and the very plain fact that when something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor, the outcome is (or can be) much worse than a failure at a solar or wind farm. And as for that water, power, etc.? California tried that experiment. It resulted in brownouts that cost lives across the state, including rural areas, all thanks to the "energy brokerage" industry that emerged under the leadership of Enron.

All in all I say this: The people in the state of Jefferson have the right to self-determination, one which I think we, as AMERICANS, for fucks sake, should not only respect, but hold dear. If they view that the Government of California no longer holds the consent of theirselves to be governed, they have the RIGHT to "dissolve the political bands which connect them to another" In this case, removing their status as counties within one state and forming a new state.

And there again, you're defining America as YOU want to and declaring the MY definition is ipso facto wrong. You obviously look at America and see (or want to see) rugged-individualism, a nation of islands that can stand alone. Me? I see the nation that came together time and again to overcome the challenges that face us. Modoc County didn't defeat the Nazis in 1945. Siskiyou County didn't develop the polio vaccine. Americans did. Working together and placing the needs of their countrymen and their fellow men above there own. That's America to me.

Ah, no. While that is a lovely dream, it is nothing more than a platitude. In political science, the United States (or, depending on you want to word this, the federal government) is sovereign.

As a Federal Republic it is only sovereign in the 20 enumerated functions. Those who insist that we be controlled from the top down with a command economy (in the broad sense, not just financial economic sense) are pushing us to the brink of civil war. As you know a Federal Republic by definition is limited government where the sovereignty is divided amongst it constituent parts and in the case of the US the caveat is that the people retain the right to fire their government and recreate their state of governance when their public servants become abusive to ends of Lawful self-governant, rule of law, or deprivation of the rights of the People.

Each of the elements is necessary to correctly classify the United States. Perhaps the most important one is 'constitutional'. We have a document which specifically establishes our system we use and limits the powers our government can lawfully exercise. Federal demonstrates one of the limits upon the central government, that being that there is a lower entity within the system which cannot be acted upon in certain ways by the central government without the consent of those lower entities. And of course, republic means that we are a nation governed by representatives of the citizenry, which is really the only meaning of republic.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Ah, no. While that is a lovely dream, it is nothing more than a platitude. In political science, the United States (or, depending on you want to word this, the federal government) is sovereign.

As a Federal Republic it is only sovereign in the 20 enumerated functions. Those who insist that we be controlled from the top down with a command economy (in the broad sense, not just financial economic sense) are pushing us to the brink of civil war. As you know a Federal Republic by definition is limited government where the sovereignty is divided amongst it constituent parts and in the case of the US the caveat is that the people retain the right to fire their government and recreate their state of governance when their public servants become abusive to ends of Lawful self-governant, rule of law, or deprivation of the rights of the People.

You're pretty funny.

[Free Missouri]

May I ask why the Urbanites who are definitely anti-individualist should have more of a right to say how WE Live our lives simply because they outnumber us? Why, simply because the Urbanites outbumber us, WE should have to contend with idiotic, inefficient, and otherwise counterintuitive and draconian gun laws like the Assault Weapons Ban? Why we should have to deal with the cities forcing solar and wind on places where we have neither the land, nor the conditions necessary for those energy sources by attacking the clean, safe and reliable nuclear and at the same time making coal and natural gas untenable? Why we should, simply because the urban areas are more populated, be forced to be governed by a nanny state simply because Urban society is incapable of living without the government controlling their water, power, food, transportation, weapons, and everything else?

You want to force your views on everyone else, too.

Actually, I don't. I'm a libertarian. The only government regulation currently in controversy that I think should be done is abortion past the average point of viability or past the point in which the child/fetus can respond to pain stimuli, and that's only because I think the government has a duty to protect the right not to be killed and especially not to be killed as gruesome as some late-term abortions can be.