RE: How best to spend US$200 billion? RE: `twisted ethics prevalent onthe extropy board'

From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 00:37:57 MDT

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "Re: Ted Steele and Lamarck"

    --- webquote --
    When the United States was being formally set up by the founding fathers
    both in the Articles of Confederation and during the Constitutional
    Convention, there was clearly divided thought as to the purpose and
    extended power of any federal government. Those who favored a
    vested-interest, mercantilist-protectionist form of central government
    did so with one thing in mind: empire building. Alexander Hamilton
    argued for this cause in the "Federalist Papers", John Adams stood on
    this side along with Henry Clay as did James Madison. But with Madison
    also went the admonition that the ultimate power of government resided
    with the individual states and if they desired, they could secede from
    the union.

    On the other side of the stood the democratists -- those who firmly
    believed that it was the people of the individual states in whom resided
    the power of any confederation of states and it was the people of those
    states who should have the right to secede from the union of states if
    they felt so disposed. On this side stood Thomas Jefferson and John C.
    Calhoun.

    In response to British piracy of American shipping, President Jefferson
    in 1807 imposed a trade embargo against England. The New England
    Federalists were so outraged at this limitation on their trade, they
    plotted to secede from the Union. The vested interests of the 'Whigs'
    were not being served at the hand of the Democratic president,
    Jefferson. Later on, during the 1850-early 60's, it was the South that
    wanted to secede from the Union because by that point in time, it was
    the Northern states Federalists who were were imposing economically
    disastrous tariffs upon the South; tariffs that began in earnest with
    the administration of President Andrew Jackson.
    --- webquote --

    It seems that it wasn't specifically addressed; up until it became an
    issue that is.

    The soviet union specifically has a clause to deal with it (something I
    find quite amusing btw);
    it states that membership in the soviet union is voluntary.

    I think Lincoln's viewpoint is the current thinking, in that I don't
    think a state could secede
    now [although I suspect, one could always make the argument]. Anybody
    here a lawyer with a
    bent for constitutional law?

    omard-out

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
    > [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury
    > Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:09 AM
    > To: extropians@extropy.org
    > Subject: RE: How best to spend US$200 billion? RE: `twisted
    > ethics prevalent onthe extropy board'
    >
    >
    >
    > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Paul Grant wrote:
    >
    > > You mean like the US federal government chose not to
    > acknowledge the
    > > southern states right to succede? How is that any different?
    >
    > Now this raises an interesting question in my mind. Does
    > anyone know if there is a "proper" process for U.S. states to
    > succede? Or did this just get overlooked in the process of
    > writing the constitution? I.e. you can join, but you cannot
    > leave. If the U.S. constitution does not have a "leaving"
    > process, are there any countries that do? The only examples
    > I can think of (where splits were peacefully agreed upon) are
    > Czechoslovakia and perhaps some of the autonomous regions in
    > the former USSR.
    >
    > Robert
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 00:46:47 MDT