A Right To Secede?

[Lethargic Aptitude]

No, not all governments are the proxy of the people. Some governments dictate to the people, and some governments consider the interests of some portion of the people over those of all the people equally, and still other governments simply consider the people to be subject to their dictates, no matter what they might be.

This government is founded on the belief that all governments, become tyrannous if they are not strictly limited in their authority, and particularly indicated that we are deliberately not a democracy, indicating that "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found 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." <Madison, Federalist #10>

As I asserted all governments are the proxy of the people whether the people realize that or not. If a entire population rises up against its oppressors it demonstrates that the government isnt the true holder of power. Of course t is easier to theoretically make this point and a lot more difficult in reality. But none the less it is is how things are in any country.


And the intent of a American form of a republican government is to a have democracy checked and balanced. But none the less democracy is a element of the US Constitution.

I didn't miss your point; i specifically disagreed with it. States being intertwined with other States is just a matter of fact, and does not change with countries being intertwined with other countries, particularly when adjacent to one another. The Walls in your metaphor were chosen to imply that when one of the rooms chooses to leave the house, then the house cannot stand, but this is not true of secession. Your metaphor is trying to dictate reality, rather than have reality simplified by the metaphor.

Of course the laws set up by a local government would generally apply to the resendts of a new country, just as the rules of a family continue to apply when they move to another house.

And the local community has no interest in building "walls" to cut anyone off. And this sort of nonsense is why I compared a discussion with you to Sesame Street, and it still applies.

Also my directions for you to do some actual study of the consideration and found your next response on real evidence, and not just your own speculation. Your speculation is not furthering discussion with anything valid.

The founders created a Americanized version of Republican Government that is dependent on the checks and balances that all of the elements provide. If you remove one element the model is destroyed. Like it or not the founders asserted that the States must stay together in their version of Republican government. The founders did not assert that a State can survive on its own or that some Sates could successively break away from the Union and be anything good. In fact they asserted that a broken up North American Continent would continuously be fighting between the broken pieces.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists. Federalist 10

They simply declare themselves no longer a part of the union. The details and terms of that secession would be resolved over time.

That isnt a method its a decree.

The words were those of the founders, and they did not know you. However hte applicable terms to those I was referencing extend far beyond just timid.

Ill answer this since I asked. Dont assume that someone who disagrees with you is being timid and whipped and unwilling to challenge leadership. Americans are concerned with the government from all walks of life within her borders. Which is a healthy indicator that the founders insistence that the people must tend to the government to keep it in check is working well. Of course I think the people are not unified but sectionalisionalized by various group ideologies. Some of those groups are harmless but some are like viruses and were put into circulation for the intent of letting those infected wreck their revisionist havoc. This is indeed dangerous times. There is a affront from the Left and the Right that designs to destroy all that our ancestors created.

Populist opinion really does not matter, and hte founders were quite clear on that, and specifically instututed means to prohibit the influence of the populist opinion in the government.

If you can provide quote those founders swaying government to suit the populist opinion, then please provide those quotes. The founders never indicated anything of the sort.

I didnt assert that the founders wanted a total populist anything. I asserted that there is a element that is a element of the republican form of government which the founders designed. Case in point is the preamble of the Constitution where it says WE THE PEOPLE. It didnt say WE THE STATES or WE THE LEGISLATORS or WE THE GOVERNMENT as well.

If the government isnt viewed in a popular light by the people then the legitimacy of the government is voided. The Federalist Papers were a attempt to get a populous support for the new Constitution. Ever notice who those federalist papers were addressed too? Were they addressed to the people or the congress or politicians?

If you do not define "fringe" by considering majority opinion, then how do you do it?

Perhaps you dont know what the word means? fringe - definition of fringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

It is not a strawman. You have repeatedly indicated and implied that rights would be denied and violated by a state seceding from the union, and that rights denials are much more likely to happen in seceded states. Yet that is technically impossible since rights violations are occurring now, under the U.S. Constitution, and by the federal government.

from the frying pan into the fire. BTW the Sates are not innocent and have been the main place that unconstitutional laws are made.

However the impetus for secession is not about opinion, mine or anyone else's, but the fact that the federal government no longer adheres to the limitations in the Constitution, and has repeatedly violated our rights and subject us to tyrannous acts that are not legitimate under the Constitution.

That some people support these government acts is irrelevant; the acts are not supported by our form of government, and represent an coup that has occurred within our government, overthrowing legitimate governance.

And it those State legislators who would be making the choice to secede.

Those State legislators are just as guilty as Federal legislators.

So tell me where this incorruptible utopia State is at that you seem to think exists? Name just one State that you think that there isnt any corruption?

The rejection of nobility, noblesse oblige and Monarchy by our founders, do not necessitate nor imply that we are any sort of Democracy. We are by deliberate plan, not a democracy. The word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution, nor any one of the founding documents. The word democracy also does not appear in any one of the state constitutions.

The rejection of Monarchy and titles of nobility, has nothing to do with us being a Democracy.

Again you are confusing direct democracy with what democracy is in our mixed government. I have never claimed nor would I want to live in a country with direct democracy or as the founders called pure democracy.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

No, the people do not decide the country's fate, they only decide the politicians fates. The representative politicians decide the country's fate, but only within certain limited terms. Our form of government is already resolved, and it is not a democracy and does not involve polling of the populace to determine our direction.

The 18th Amendment should never have been in the Constitution, as it was inherently contrary to the constituiton - unconstituitonal, and nowhere the belonged as an amendment in that document.

You are ignoring the fact that never even suggested that the people directly govern the nation. But by deciding the politicians fates the people are in direct control of this countries fate. lol the Constitution and many other documents are readily available to the public it should be common sense that when a American declares that the people control this country it through the proper channels not through direct democracy. Which is why you should abandon your strawman argument trying to accuse me of making grand claims that I have never made in my entire life.

And I agree that the 18th was a pile of corruption and black stain on this country. But you failed to address my point at all, that the State Governments are not angels.

There you go again implying that seceded states would somehow suddenly become tyrannous, absent "checks", even as you have asseted they'd denied rights, even though you cliam otherwise.

Why would a state not have any checks on it? The federal government is not a "check" on the states, but rather only exercises certain rights for the states. Those states themselves have their own actual checks. They have executive, legisialtive, and judicial branches, just like the federal government.

Read the Federalist papers # 10

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Why do you imagine that table is even remotely relevant? The determiner of these acts of constitutionality has been the federal government itself and generally the Supreme Court. Yet the utter lack of constitutional regard is seen in all three branches of the government, including the Courts, and I've at least alluded to this throughout the thread.

As a result, the government is no longer 'checking' itself, and has turned that which is unconstitutonal, into constitutional, and that which is constitutional by the states, into unconstitutional.

The States are bound by the Constitution that is a fact that you cannot deny without being totally dishonest.

Not so long ago that same Court determined that the government could fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and government, not by amendment, but by a mere statute which was made into law by dishonesty, bribery, coercion and outright fraud, with no one voting on the law having actually read it! Meanwhile, the Court's first impulse is to examine if they can even hear the case because of an equally illegitimate law intended to prohibit stopping of the collection of a revenue act, until that revenue is actually collected, thereby putting the government's tax authority ahead of the primary purpose of the government and consideration in involving the protection of individual rights, which never even were considered by the court!

We even have the federal government telling the state government, that they cannot enforce immigration legislation that already exists as federal laws, even though the federal government is entirely refusing to abide by that law! Curiously while the federal authority includes positive recognitions of immigration and naturalization, nowhere does that authority include allowing and promoting illegal entry as a part of "immigration".

The cumulative weight of this sort of nonsense nonsense perpetrated by the federal government, makes your reference to "unconstitutional" as determined by an unconstitutional government, thoroughly irrelevant and an inappropriate reference. However your subservience to an unfettered, totalitarian government it should be again recognized.

However it certainly is 'cute' to see you so profoundly concerned that a seceded state would not have any "checks" on it, while you entirely ignore the non-functional and corrupt checks on the federal government itself, which give cause to secession.

Its amazing how you automatically assume that I must side with everything that you oppose. Why is that? Take a look at the left where it says where me location is? Thats right New Mexico, in fact I am 50 miles from the international border with Mexico. I dont agree with my own states stance on illegal immigration and I dont agree with the Federal stance on illegal immigration. IMO anyone entering this country illegally is just what it sounds like, they are committing a crime. Every single person who does such a illegal act should be arrested and deported upon discovery. There should be zero tolerance for offenders. The only exception should be for illegitimate political asylum which involves the likely hood of them being killed upon returning to their home country. Instead we seem to welcome the illegal entry into this country while if I went to Mexico without a visa and tried to reenter the US I would be arrested on the spot. It makes no sense to me.

My own State hands out legal driver license to illegal imagrates. And other Sates have equally insane laws so immigration isnt just a Federal issue by any means. Again if if left to just a single State they will do whatever they want and no one can stop them. The Checks and Balances are the key ingredient of the founders Constitution. State secession removes those Checks and Balances therefor State secession is anti to the Constitution and what the founders wanted. I mean you keep going on about what the founders wanted and what they created that we should go back to that and stick with that, right? Well the founders did not want to end the Union at all. The Federalist Papers went into length about how the Union was the only real option for the US. It is one thing that reserve a right to fight oppression it is another to the intent of the founders and why we all know about them.

 

[Master PO]

The States are bound by the Constitution that is a fact that you cannot deny without being totally dishonest.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison

 

[Master PO]

Federalist Paper 10

The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
From the New York Packet.
Friday, November 23, 1787.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

 

[Master PO]

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to 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 purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

 

[Trip]

As I asserted all governments are the proxy of the people whether the people realize that or not. If a entire population rises up against its oppressors it demonstrates that the government isnt the true holder of power. Of course t is easier to theoretically make this point and a lot more difficult in reality. But none the less it is is how things are in any country.

If all governments are proxies of the people., then why would it be necessary for the people to rise up and overthrow any government?

Evidently you don't know the meaning of the word "proxy".

And the intent of a American form of a republican government is to a have democracy checked and balanced. But none the less democracy is a element of the US Constitution.
The founders created a Americanized version of Republican Government that is dependent on the checks and balances that all of the elements provide. If you remove one element the model is destroyed. Like it or not the founders asserted that the States must stay together in their version of Republican government. The founders did not assert that a State can survive on its own or that some Sates could successively break away from the Union and be anything good. In fact they asserted that a broken up North American Continent would continuously be fighting between the broken pieces.

Sorry, but the Ancient Romanized version of the the Republican government also had checks and balances. And again the references to checks and balances does not involve references to the States.

Nowhere in Federalist #10 does Madison indicate that a broken up North AMerica would be continuously fighting one another. Nowhere in Federalist #10 does Madison even refer to a "broken up America". "Factions" has nothing to do with "breaking up" of America, and you should really sit down while you're behind.

Federalist #10 is not the easiest writing for many to understand; may I suggest that you not waste our time by you stating what it does not say.

Ill answer this since I asked. Dont assume that someone who disagrees with you is being timid and whipped and unwilling to challenge leadership. Americans are concerned with the government from all walks of life within her borders. Which is a healthy indicator that the founders insistence that the people must tend to the government to keep it in check is working well. Of course I think the people are not unified but sectionalisionalized by various group ideologies. Some of those groups are harmless but some are like viruses and were put into circulation for the intent of letting those infected wreck their revisionist havoc. This is indeed dangerous times. There is a affront from the Left and the Right that designs to destroy all that our ancestors created.

You cannot answer that which you did not grasp in the first place. The timidity referred to in that quote, had nothing to do with challenging leadership.

People are "sectionalisionalized" [sic, lmao!] not by group ideologies that already naturally exist, but by the politicians pandering and engaging in agendas of picking winners and losers from them. However since you did not previously understand "factionalized", you probably should not be discussing it now.

The affront from the left, does not suppose that there is any sort of equal affront from the right. T Here is no sort of law of "balance of extremism" inherent to politics, and indeed none is evident.

I didnt assert that the founders wanted a total populist anything. I asserted that there is a element that is a element of the republican form of government which the founders designed. Case in point is the preamble of the Constitution where it says WE THE PEOPLE. It didnt say WE THE STATES or WE THE LEGISLATORS or WE THE GOVERNMENT as well.

We, the people is a "element of the Republican form of government"? no, really it's not. Republican form of government refers to a form of government under a constitution that limits the the government. That this government was created by the people, and not from some pre-existing form of government, as with other countries, is just reality - and not an appeal to democracy.

If the government isnt viewed in a popular light by the people then the legitimacy of the government is voided. The Federalist Papers were a attempt to get a populous support for the new Constitution. Ever notice who those federalist papers were addressed too? Were they addressed to the people or the congress or politicians?

No, it's not. The legitimacy of the government is actually VOIDED and NULLIFIED by the government appealing to and engaging in populist appeal. The federalist papers were an attempt to educate the masses of the propriety and necessity of a new form of government in the Constitution, not to just get populist appeal. They papers were addressed to those people who were educated and sought out knowledge, and not delivered 'live' from a stump to those who could not read.

Perhaps you dont know what the word means? fringe - definition of fringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I ask you again, if you do not define "fringe" by considering majority opinion, then how do you do it? Do you suppose when your definition references such terms as "marginal, peripheral, or secondary part" and "extreme view" that it involves being out in some remote area?

No, the term fringe inherently involves a reference to the majority opinion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with correctness, or radicalness.

BTW the Sates are not innocent and have been the main place that unconstitutional laws are made.
Those State legislators are just as guilty as Federal legislators.

No, they're not. The federal government has just been doing the judging of what is constitutional, or not, and has thoroughly warped and corrupted the Constitution. The founders universal philosophy was that federal government corruption was far more dangerous than state government, because of the authority, power and resources it would wield.

So tell me where this incorruptible utopia State is at that you seem to think exists? Name just one State that you think that there isnt any corruption?

Strawman. The utopian government is coming from the statist dictators, and not from the state governments.

Again you are confusing direct democracy with what democracy is in our mixed government. I have never claimed nor would I want to live in a country with direct democracy or as the founders called pure democracy.

No, I'm not confusing anything. We do not have a democracy. Even as your cited text indicates, the "delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest" does not make us a Democracy, and does not make us a "mixed" form of government either. The existence of those individuals elected in government has nothing whatsoever to do with government's agenda being determined by majority rule.

Read the Federalist papers # 10

Oh, I have indeed read Federalist #10 and written a thesis on it, but more importantly I've understood it. You however have in this post made it quite clear that you did not understand Federlist #10 at all. In fact you have pretty much made a laughing stock of yourself by your gross misunderstanding of it, and "factionalization" in particular.

 

[Trip]

The States are bound by the Constitution that is a fact that you cannot deny without being totally dishonest.

The states are bound by into a union by the Constitution, sure.

However that union does not become compulsory by each State's membership therein... and that is a fact one cannot deny, without denying every principle upon which this country was founded, i.e. "unless one is being totally ignorant."

Its amazing how you automatically assume that I must side with everything that you oppose. Why is that? Take a look at the left where it says where me location is? Thats right New Mexico, in fact I am 50 miles from the international border with Mexico. I dont agree with my own states stance on illegal immigration and I dont agree with the Federal stance on illegal immigration. IMO anyone entering this country illegally is just what it sounds like, they are committing a crime. Every single person who does such a illegal act should be arrested and deported upon discovery. There should be zero tolerance for offenders. The only exception should be for illegitimate political asylum which involves the likely hood of them being killed upon returning to their home country. Instead we seem to welcome the illegal entry into this country while if I went to Mexico without a visa and tried to reenter the US I would be arrested on the spot. It makes no sense to me.

My own State hands out legal driver license to illegal imagrates. And other Sates have equally insane laws so immigration isnt just a Federal issue by any means. Again if if left to just a single State they will do whatever they want and no one can stop them. The Checks and Balances are the key ingredient of the founders Constitution. State secession removes those Checks and Balances therefor State secession is anti to the Constitution and what the founders wanted. I mean you keep going on about what the founders wanted and what they created that we should go back to that and stick with that, right? Well the founders did not want to end the Union at all. The Federalist Papers went into length about how the Union was the only real option for the US. It is one thing that reserve a right to fight oppression it is another to the intent of the founders and why we all know about them.

Immigration is not just a federal issue, but then the entry of illegals into this country is not "immigration".

You keep applying your own meaning to "checks and balances" and that you're not allowed to do. Words have specific meaning, which also entails the need for those using them to educate themselves as to that meaning, i.e. "you", rather than just apply those words 'as they seem' at face value. "Checks and balances", is a term of art, and is specifically applied to an aspect of "Separation of Powers", which is recognized to be the boundaries between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches,. Checks and balances does not apply to the differences between the state and federal government, which we know as federalism. Again, checks band balances has nothing whatsoever to do with the relationship between federal government and the several states.


I've told you this more than once now. Now you need to recognize it yourself.

As Checks and Balances do not apply to the relationship between the state and federal government, then "checks and balances" are obviously not removed when a state secedes from the federal government. You're just showing your thorough ignorance with this statement, and you should be extremely embarrassed.

The founders did not want to end the union, but as Jefferson showed, in a choice between losing freedoms to a tyrannous federal government, and secession, there can be "no hesitation."

The federalist papers discusses how a REPUBLIC is the only real form of government for the United States, and does not say anything about the "union" being compulsory.

And as you have shown recently, you do not "know about them" <the founders>, nor understand the Federalist papers, even while you do expound on each...which should be embarrassing for you, and it most certainly is annoying for us, because I'm not getting paid at all to further your education.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison

bwahaha talking about being intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you thought that would work but it doesnt. The Federalist papers # 39 where you dishonestly gleaned that quote from says a lot more than just that. Lets take a look at it shall we?

If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by States, not by citizens, it departs from the national and advances towards the federal character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes of the national character.

The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

Did you get that? He is saying that at times the COnstitution is National and at other times it is Federal and at other time it is neither, and sometimes its both.

If your argument is that the Constitution is entirely Federal then you have been debunked. Which creates a problem for your arguments for State secession. In order for you t be correct the Constitution must be entirely 100% Federal, but as Madison shows us the Constitution isnt 100% Federal. The claim that the Constitution is 100% Federal is a point blank lie.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The states are bound by into a union by the Constitution, sure.

However that union does not become compulsory by each State's membership therein... and that is a fact one cannot deny, without denying every principle upon which this country was founded, i.e. "unless one is being totally ignorant."

Again I didnt say compulsory that was your strawman argument.

Immigration is not just a federal issue, but then the entry of illegals into this country is not "immigration".

Did you miss the word illegal and my explanation about it being a criminal act? Illegal immigration is people trying to immigrate illegally hence the word illegal. The act has to do with immigration. People are entering the country illegally rather than the legal way. Its all quite simply really, if someone crosses our international border without doing what the law asks of them, they broke the law. be it permanent or temporary they were immigrating. WHich is what I was talking about. Now if the intentions were solely to commit crimes and they crossed and crossed back that is something else. But its related IMO.

You keep applying your own meaning to "checks and balances" and that you're not allowed to do. Words have specific meaning, which also entails the need for those using them to educate themselves as to that meaning, i.e. "you", rather than just apply those words 'as they seem' at face value. "Checks and balances", is a term of art, and is specifically applied to an aspect of "Separation of Powers", which is recognized to be the boundaries between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches,. Checks and balances does not apply to the differences between the state and federal government, which we know as federalism. Again, checks band balances has nothing whatsoever to do with the relationship between federal government and the several states.


I've told you this more than once now. Now you need to recognize it yourself.

As Checks and Balances do not apply to the relationship between the state and federal government, then "checks and balances" are obviously not removed when a state secedes from the federal government. You're just showing your thorough ignorance with this statement, and you should be extremely embarrassed.

The founders did not want to end the union, but as Jefferson showed, in a choice between losing freedoms to a tyrannous federal government, and secession, there can be "no hesitation."

The federalist papers discusses how a REPUBLIC is the only real form of government for the United States, and does not say anything about the "union" being compulsory.

And as you have shown recently, you do not "know about them" <the founders>, nor understand the Federalist papers, even while you do expound on each...which should be embarrassing for you, and it most certainly is annoying for us, because I'm not getting paid at all to further your education.

I already showed you all of that and where you were wrong.

Again your compulsory argument is a strawman argument.

 

[Master PO]

bwahaha talking about being intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you thought that would work but it doesnt. The Federalist papers # 39 where you dishonestly gleaned that quote from says a lot more than just that. Lets take a look at it shall we?

If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by States, not by citizens, it departs from the national and advances towards the federal character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the federal and partakes of the national character.

The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

Did you get that? He is saying that at times the COnstitution is National and at other times it is Federal and at other time it is neither, and sometimes its both.

If your argument is that the Constitution is entirely Federal then you have been debunked. Which creates a problem for your arguments for State secession. In order for you t be correct the Constitution must be entirely 100% Federal, but as Madison shows us the Constitution isnt 100% Federal. The claim that the Constitution is 100% Federal is a point blank lie.

did you get this part?


Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison

when it comes to states, they are bound voluntary, because its federal....a separation of powers!.........not national.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

If all governments are proxies of the people., then why would it be necessary for the people to rise up and overthrow any government?

The people use the government as a proxy and when that fails they rise up. Its not that hard to understand. And with countries with dictatorships the government is still the proxy of the people even though the government is dictating to them what to do. The people may at any time rise up against their government if they choose to do so. And no law can stop people that are not concerned with laws that they feel are wrong.

The problem with State secession is that it goes against the founders model of government. But supporters of State secession claim that secession is a legal act which it is not a legal act since it defies the Constitutional laws that govern the relationship between the States and the Federal government. Secession asserts that the State is no longer bound by Constitutional law. Its lawlessness and should be viewed that way. And like I have said before if the Federal Government is truly illegitimate then it doesnt matter what the laws are at all.

Sorry, but the Ancient Romanized version of the the Republican government also had checks and balances. And again the references to checks and balances does not involve references to the States.

Nowhere in Federalist #10 does Madison indicate that a broken up North AMerica would be continuously fighting one another. Nowhere in Federalist #10 does Madison even refer to a "broken up America".

Madison was talking about the widely known fact of what happens when factions get carried away are left progress into the end result which breaks apart nations. ANd Madison speaks of the remedy: The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists. Federalist 10

We, the people is a "element of the Republican form of government"? no, really it's not. Republican form of government refers to a form of government under a constitution that limits the the government. That this government was created by the people, and not from some pre-existing form of government, as with other countries, is just reality - and not an appeal to democracy.

Stretching a bit arent you? Without the people there isnt a country nor a government. You cant get dogs to do it now can you?

No, it's not. The legitimacy of the government is actually VOIDED and NULLIFIED by the government appealing to and engaging in populist appeal. The federalist papers were an attempt to educate the masses of the propriety and necessity of a new form of government in the Constitution, not to just get populist appeal. They papers were addressed to those people who were educated and sought out knowledge, and not delivered 'live' from a stump to those who could not read.

You dont think that those who could read actually read to other people? But any ways it is the people who decide if a government is legit or not.

I ask you again, if you do not define "fringe" by considering majority opinion, then how do you do it? Do you suppose when your definition references such terms as "marginal, peripheral, or secondary part" and "extreme view" that it involves being out in some remote area?

No, the term fringe inherently involves a reference to the majority opinion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with correctness, or radicalness.

lol sorry but you cant just twist things to meet your argument. "fringe" in context to political issues refers to this definition: 4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe. Notice that nowhere in there does it speak of quantity? You used the wrong definition for the wrong context.

No, they're not. The federal government has just been doing the judging of what is constitutional, or not, and has thoroughly warped and corrupted the Constitution. The founders universal philosophy was that federal government corruption was far more dangerous than state government, because of the authority, power and resources it would wield.

More being the fact that they did not deny that Sate Government can become corrupted and their view was based on the Union staying intact not separated.

Strawman. The utopian government is coming from the statist dictators, and not from the state governments.

Thers isnt any strawman on my part here. You keep asserting that the State Governments are innocent and are being violated solely by the Federal Government. Such a view is a Utopian view of State Government. But your argument DEPENDS on Sate Governments being incorruptible in order to argue for the right of Sates to secede from the Union. You have failed to show that to be reality.

No, I'm not confusing anything. We do not have a democracy. Even as your cited text indicates, the "delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest" does not make us a Democracy, and does not make us a "mixed" form of government either. The existence of those individuals elected in government has nothing whatsoever to do with government's agenda being determined by majority rule.

You are assuming that democracy means that the entire government must be a pure or direct democracy. That isnt at all what I asserted in what most people assert. The concept is that democracy is but one of the elements of our government not the entire game.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

did you get this part?


Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison

when it comes to states, they are bound voluntary, because its federal....a separation of powers!.........not national.

Yes that depicts the act of ratifying the Constitution. Nowhere in there does that sentence state anything about doing anything other than ratifying the Constitution. But Madison also showed that the Constitution wasnt entirely either National or Federal so what is your point then?

 

[Trip]

The people use the government as a proxy and when that fails they rise up. Its not that hard to understand. And with countries with dictatorships the government is still the proxy of the people even though the government is dictating to them what to do. The people may at any time rise up against their government if they choose to do so. And no law can stop people that are not concerned with laws that they feel are wrong.

Well, whether you realize it or not, is not all governments are the proxy of the people, and the need to rise up and overthrow the oppressors shows this. Such revolutions are not showing any ongoing proxy of the people in government, but rather the absence of it.

The problem with State secession is that it goes against the founders model of government. But supporters of State secession claim that secession is a legal act which it is not a legal act since it defies the Constitutional laws that govern the relationship between the States and the Federal government. Secession asserts that the State is no longer bound by Constitutional law. Its lawlessness and should be viewed that way. And like I have said before if the Federal Government is truly illegitimate then it doesnt matter what the laws are at all.

Nowhere does state secession go against the "founders model of government". The founders never asserted that the states must stay together, not anywhere, and did not make it "unlawful". In fact, as shown, Madison and other founders deliberately affirmed the right to secede in ratification statements, and Jefferson indicated that there can be "no hesitation" in the choice between a tyrannous government in disregard of individual freedoms, and secession.

And, no, supporters of the right to secede do NOT claim that "secession is a legal act", because legality has nothing to do with it, and does not in any way 'defy' the Constitutional laws governing anything. Secession is in fact an extra-constitutional and extra-legal act, by the state choosing to no longer be subject to the Constitution, done in the absence of that Constitution's applicability. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, contrary to your assertion, nowhere is the authority to prohibit states leaving the union given to the federal government, nor is leaving the union prohibited to the states by the Constitution, thereby leaving that choice part of the ongoing sovereignty of each state.

Being no longer bound by the Constitution is not "lawlessness", any more so than other sovereign countries are lawless as a result of not being subject to the U.S. Constitution, and such a claim is patently false, and thoroughly asinine. Each seceded state would obviously have ongoing applicable laws and new laws to which they would subject themselves!

Stretching a bit arent you? Without the people there isnt a country nor a government. You cant get dogs to do it now can you?

You're distorting what I said to fabricate a strawman. Obviously the people play a role, but as individuals, not as the will of a collective body, not majority dictate, which is the basis of the Socialist and Communist ideologies.

But any ways it is the people who decide if a government is legit or not.

No, they don't. The terms of our legitimate government have already been resolved and agreed upon at the onset. What constitutes legitimate government is not subject to the whim of "the people", which is democracy.

lol sorry but you cant just twist things to meet your argument. "fringe" in context to political issues refers to this definition: 4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe. Notice that nowhere in there does it speak of quantity? You used the wrong definition for the wrong context.

Those views that are "extreme" with regard to "fringe" are established, not by any sort of objective test, but by the mere fact of them being outside the majority norm -- hence an appeal to a majority view.

More being the fact that they did not deny that Sate Government can become corrupted and their view was based on the Union staying intact not separated.

While the ideal was that the union state intact, it was not the ultimate goal of the founders, and certainly did not involve any compulsion to that goal, which is why Jefferson could say there must be "no hesitation" in the choice.

Thers isnt any strawman on my part here. You keep asserting that the State Governments are innocent and are being violated solely by the Federal Government. Such a view is a Utopian view of State Government. But your argument DEPENDS on Sate Governments being incorruptible in order to argue for the right of Sates to secede from the Union. You have failed to show that to be reality.

Strawman again. I've never asserted anything similar to the state governments being "innocent", nor are they immune from being corrupt and tyrannous. Just look at California as case in point. Also My argument does NOT "DEPEND" on the state governments being incorruptible, but the fact recognized and relied upon by the founders that such state corruption is far easier remedied than a corrupt federal government which is so removed from the freedoms of the people, even exempting itself from its own laws, as we see our government doing today.

My argument regarding the states rights to secede does not hinge on the states being incorruptible, but surely does not do what you do, which is believe the states to be inherently corrupt and the federal government immune, which is obvious fallacy, and contrary to the facts we see today.

You are assuming that democracy means that the entire government must be a pure or direct democracy. That isnt at all what I asserted in what most people assert. The concept is that democracy is but one of the elements of our government not the entire game.

No, I am making no such assumption. I am indicating that the mere election of certain representatives by popular vote does not make our governance any sort of democracy, nor make us a "mixed" form of government. Our form of government and what the government can do, ideally, as intended, is not influenced by that populist will at all.

However the corruption of that government, now engaged in illegitimate acts, is entirely prone to populist will, and the purchase of influence through wide-ranging 'factions'... just as Madison warned against in Federalist #10.


<more on Madison Federalist 10 to come>

 

[Master PO]

Yes that depicts the act of ratifying the Constitution. Nowhere in there does that sentence state anything about doing anything other than ratifying the Constitution. But Madison also showed that the Constitution wasnt entirely either National or Federal so what is your point then?

one more time!

did you get this part?


Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison

they are by their own act ((((bound voluntary)))), because its federal.... when it comes to ----->this situation.................not national.

 

[Trip]

Madison was talking about the widely known fact of what happens when factions get carried away are left progress into the end result which breaks apart nations. ANd Madison speaks of the remedy:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. <snip>
​

Madison, in Federalist #10, is not at all talking directly about the break apart of nations, but rather about the normal existence of factions within any given nation and populace, given the multitude of varying interests.

Madison's intent in this Federalist is to indicate that our intended form of government reduces factions by giving each 'faction' and individual a common interest of having the protection of commonly shared individual rights allowing each individual the optimal condition of freedom to benefit their life. Madison indicates:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.


It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.



​

Today's readers might be somewhat confused by the above bolded portions, finding them conflicting. The first reference to "removing its causes", which later is described as "destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence" involves the government forcibly equalizing persons in property, and beliefs - which we know as Socialism and Marxism, thereby removing faction, but whose "remedy is worse than the disease." Madison recognizes that faction exists naturally under freedom. The second reference to "controlling the effects" <of faction>, and later "by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests", is not the government forcing these views on every citizen, but rather by promoting what common interests they have via individual liberty, having citizens promote the shared interest of both their own and others personal liberty, and thereby "controlling the effects" of faction.


Madison describes "theoretic politicians" which intend to remove the causes of that faction, by various means, which we recognize today as redistribution of wealth, social justice, and political correctness of the Progressive ideology, but these all "destroy the liberty which is essential to" this country's existence:

[FONT=&quot]Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions <redistribution of wealth>, their opinions <Political Correctness>, and their passions <Social Justice>.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

Here, more than 200 years ago, Madison is warning us about the denial of liberty by what we today know as Progressive socialism and the Marxist ideology.

Madison goes on:

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
​

Faction exists regardless of what is done, even under today's Progressive Marxism. However the only relief to be had is by controlling the effects that of faction, and this is done through freedom and individual liberty.

Madison then answers how those effects of faction are controlled in a Republic: the answer is the shared "common good", or "public good" which ensures each of individual's rights and freedoms equally, giving everyone the same shared motivation which ensures freedom. That is what the goal of our government's structure is, ideally - individual liberty. This is the foundation and purpose of Madison's entire argument.

However, as we exist now, the shared common good has been corrupted, with politicians openly declaring schemes to redistribute wealth, and property, in the name of "fairness", deliberately manipulating race and class, thus exacerbating faction, and balkanizing the entire country to the point of first pointless random violence, then secession and/or warfare.

It is no surprise that we were brought to this point by a "theoretical politician", who openly advocates "spreading the wealth around", taxing the rich, and views the weakness of the Constitution as not indicating "what the government must do on your behalf".

We have reached this point precisely because the government is no longer adhering to the Constitution, and we no longer have a moral and enlightened populace, who instead have altered our governance to be democratic in nature and influenced by populist demand.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Madison, in Federalist #10, is not at all talking directly about the break apart of nations,

:doh Never said that he was, you just decided to say that I was.



Dont bother mentioning strawmans about Marx and any other idiotic Leftist crap. I will treat them the same way that I treat your ad hominem attacks, in the round file.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

one more time!

did you get this part?


Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison

they are by their own act ((((bound voluntary)))), because its federal.... when it comes to ----->this situation.................not national.

Yes I got it back in 1979 but you are trying to put extra meaning into a two short sentences out of much more text.

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution [explains the action] is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act [indicates that the states are acting under their own authority and not forced to to the action described]. that was the end of that sentence contextually separated from the next sentence as being a assertion of voluntary acceptance of the Constitution by the States. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be [a literal connector to the prior sentence] a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution [asserting the nature of the action as described in the prior sentence]

The first part of the paragraph where you gleaned that quote from is all about the action of ratifying the Constitution. That is the subject in which the paragraph was talking about solely. The paragraph was not describing the extent of sovereignty of the States at all. To make the assumption that you are trying to make is stretching the limits of contextual definition. The prior paragraph framed the assertion as this The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.



The rest of the text explains that the Constitution is neither wholly Federal nor National. And the conclusion paragraph proves my point beyond any doubt. So there it is right there in black and white penned by a founder that the US Government isnt actual 100% Federal.

The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national. read that carefully before you respond because I will point to the text in the above paragraph as my direct claims about the nature of our Government.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Nowhere does state secession go against the "founders model of government". The founders never asserted that the states must stay together, not anywhere, and did not make it "unlawful". In fact, as shown, Madison and other founders deliberately affirmed the right to secede in ratification statements, and Jefferson indicated that there can be "no hesitation" in the choice between a tyrannous government in disregard of individual freedoms, and secession.

And, no, supporters of the right to secede do NOT claim that "secession is a legal act", because legality has nothing to do with it, and does not in any way 'defy' the Constitutional laws governing anything. Secession is in fact an extra-constitutional and extra-legal act, by the state choosing to no longer be subject to the Constitution, done in the absence of that Constitution's applicability. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, contrary to your assertion, nowhere is the authority to prohibit states leaving the union given to the federal government, nor is leaving the union prohibited to the states by the Constitution, thereby leaving that choice part of the ongoing sovereignty of each state.

Being no longer bound by the Constitution is not "lawlessness", any more so than other sovereign countries are lawless as a result of not being subject to the U.S. Constitution, and such a claim is patently false, and thoroughly asinine. Each seceded state would obviously have ongoing applicable laws and new laws to which they would subject themselves!

"Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately," Ben Franklin at the singing of the Declaration of independence

The founders wanted a union between the States they did not want to separate the Sates otherwise wht is the damn point of everything thing that these people did the earned then the title as this nations founders?

No, they don't. The terms of our legitimate government have already been resolved and agreed upon at the onset. What constitutes legitimate government is not subject to the whim of "the people", which is democracy.

Sure go ahead let a government piss off the people and see how long a government stands. Or did you change your mind on that?

Those views that are "extreme" with regard to "fringe" are established, not by any sort of objective test, but by the mere fact of them being outside the majority norm -- hence an appeal to a majority view.

Show me then where the dictionary is wrong about the political reference to the word fringe?

While the ideal was that the union state intact, it was not the ultimate goal of the founders, and certainly did not involve any compulsion to that goal, which is why Jefferson could say there must be "no hesitation" in the choice.

I never said compulsion either. And the hell you say it was the founders intention that the Union stayed intact not destroyed by corruption.

Strawman again. I've never asserted anything similar to the state governments being "innocent", nor are they immune from being corrupt and tyrannous. Just look at California as case in point. Also My argument does NOT "DEPEND" on the state governments being incorruptible, but the fact recognized and relied upon by the founders that such state corruption is far easier remedied than a corrupt federal government which is so removed from the freedoms of the people, even exempting itself from its own laws, as we see our government doing today.

My argument regarding the states rights to secede does not hinge on the states being incorruptible, but surely does not do what you do, which is believe the states to be inherently corrupt and the federal government immune, which is obvious fallacy, and contrary to the facts we see today.

Then you admit that a Sate might be corrupted enough that they might want secede so that they can start a dictatorship without interference by the Constitution? See what I did there that was me making my actual point not the one you keep trying to replace it with.

No, I am making no such assumption. I am indicating that the mere election of certain representatives by popular vote does not make our governance any sort of democracy, nor make us a "mixed" form of government. Our form of government and what the government can do, ideally, as intended, is not influenced by that populist will at all.

I get it you dont truly understand the definition of democracy as it is used now?

However the corruption of that government, now engaged in illegitimate acts, is entirely prone to populist will, and the purchase of influence through wide-ranging 'factions'... just as Madison warned against in Federalist #10.

I never claimed that everything was peechee.

 

[Master PO]

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.-- james madison


let me assert this, .....are you saying that, because the states used its own voluntary act to ratify the constitution....... it is now bound to the union forever?

 

[Trip]

"Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately," Ben Franklin at the singing of the Declaration of independence

The founders wanted a union between the States they did not want to separate the Sates otherwise wht is the damn point of everything thing that these people did the earned then the title as this nations founders?

The founders wanted to "hang together" because they needed a unified front against Britain, the greatest world empire at that time. "Hanging together" did not mean that leaving them would be prohibited, nor that the seceding state should be hung!

I never said compulsion either. And the hell you say it was the founders intention that the Union stayed intact not destroyed by corruption.

You've repeatedly indicated that states cannot leave the union voluntary - which is compelled members - compulsion. You did not need to use the word "compulsion" for that to be the concept you've repeatedly conveyed.

Then you admit that a Sate might be corrupted enough that they might want secede so that they can start a dictatorship without interference by the Constitution? See what I did there that was me making my actual point not the one you keep trying to replace it with.

Why would the secede for a dictatorship when we already have a dictatorship now, or at least a totalitarian oligarchy??

Imagining that they would necessarily secede for a dictatorship, given the numerous causes for leaving the union now involving the denial of individual freedoms, as well as federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives, while many openly are pushing us to non-representative globalist governance... is nothing short of asinine!

 

[Trip]

Dont bother mentioning strawmans about Marx and any other idiotic Leftist crap. I will treat them the same way that I treat your ad hominem attacks, in the round file.

Strawmans?

So what part do you disagree with?

Given the description by Madison of:

- Theoretic politicians <promoting a dictated agenda>
- reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights
- to be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions
- to be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their opinions
- to be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their passions

... Would you agree, or disagree, that all the above describes Marxism, Communism, and the current Progressive ideology to a tee? .. particularly given these ideologies promote "fairness" that involves the redistribution of wealth, speech and thought that based on political correctness, and embracing such ideologies as Agenda 21 that involve herding everyone together in one area and living in limited designated housing areas?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Strawmans?

So what part do you disagree with?

Given the description by Madison of:

[FONT=&]- Theoretic politicians <promoting a dictated agenda>
[/FONT][FONT=&]- reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights[/FONT]
[FONT=&]- to be perfectly equalized and assimilated in theirpossessions [/FONT]
[FONT=&]- to be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their [/FONT][FONT=&]opinions [/FONT]
[FONT=&][FONT=&]- to be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their [/FONT]passions[/FONT]

... Would you agree, or disagree, that all the above describes Marxism, Communism, and the current Progressive ideology to a tee?

Could you give me the specific links so I can read these in context?


But I know one thing though I havent at all asserted anything near any of those concepts.

 

[Trip]

Could you give me the specific links so I can read these in context?


But I know one thing though I havent at all asserted anything near any of those concepts.

I'm not claiming, or going to claim, that you have asserted or even implied any of those concepts.

And don't you have the link to Federalist 10, as you cited it yourself? The terms that I put forward, directly from Madison, should be more than sufficient to identify the ideology. I'm not pulling any sort of "trick" here.

Link to all the Federalist Papers

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The founders wanted to "hang together" because they needed a unified front against Britain, the greatest world empire at that time. "Hanging together" did not mean that leaving them would be prohibited, nor that the seceding state should be hung!

Prohibited isnt a word that I would use. Adn I definitely didnt suggest hanging anyone.

Communities have deep bonds, they look out for each other through thick and thin. If a house catches fire a neighbor might risk their own life to save the neighbor or even their property. When people really like their community and want the best for it they make sacrifices to better the community. When a thief breaks into a neighbors house and you witness it you do not just turn your back. The same goes for if your neighbor house is on fire you done just go back to watching TV. If you see someone with a bomb in a public place you dont just shrug your shoulders and walk away. If someone attacks your best friend while you are there you are compelled to help your friend and if you do not help your friend that are no friend you are a coward.

State secession is a insult on every American the has ever live and those alive now. We are all in this together you can cry about a Sates right to secede all that you want. You can quot the founders or whatever you please, but a insult is a insult. When you turn your back on your neighbors when they are need you are a selfish good for nothing coward. Why do you think that the anti secessionists got mad about secession? No not whatever off the wall thing that you were going to say but because State secession is like a spit in the eye an act of aggression towards your neighbors. State secession is a selfish move that ignores over 200 years of history that has made this country great.

You've repeatedly indicated that states cannot leave the union voluntary - which is compelled members - compulsion. You did not need to use the word "compulsion" for that to be the concept you've repeatedly conveyed.

I have asserted that there isnt a method of doing so and besides you would have to ignore the COnstitution to do so and you would have to declare that that State stands against the COnstitution and the rest of the States its a rogue act and arrogant challenge to everyone else saying that that State is above the laws of the land. You can try to justify secession all that you want but that wont make secession a valid goal.

Why would the secede for a dictatorship when we already have a dictatorship now, or at least a totalitarian oligarchy??

Your kidding right? What kind of naive world do you live in anyways? SOme people want their own dictatorship for their one reasons they dont want to be told what to do they want to be the ones telling other people what to do.

Your question is like asking why would two murders fight each other?

Imagining that they would necessarily secede for a dictatorship, given the numerous causes for leaving the union now involving the denial of individual freedoms, as well as federal intrusion into all aspects of our lives, while many openly are pushing us to non-representative globalist governance... is nothing short of asinine!

Yea and Hitler wanted nothing but good for Germany right? Stalin just wanted to help the workers right? And the KKK just want to fix things for the good of the people? Hugo Chavez was looking out for the poor? Power hungry people will tell the people anything to gain control. And Sate secessionists are no better,

But why dont you explain honestly what you expect to happen after your State seceded. lets just pretend that no one cared that your State seceded. How would the State Government work independently? What would the residents do? What would happen to those Lefties?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I'm not claiming, or going to claim, that you have asserted or even implied any of those concepts.

And don't you have the link to Federalist 10, as you cited it yourself? The terms that I put forward, directly from Madison, should be more than sufficient to identify the ideology. I'm not pulling any sort of "trick" here.

Link to all the Federalist Papers

Ok Ill be back in the morning...