How did I miss this? Montana threatens to secede if the Supreme Court hears Heller and rules that there is no individual right to bear arms. I am . . . cough . . . somewhat doubtful . . . that they will actually attempt to make good on their threat should the Supreme Court defy them. The benefits of being part of the United States are extremely large, particularly for Montana, which is, IIRC, a big net beneficiary of Federal largesse. But it's nice to see the secession space taken over by someone besides neo-confederates.
« Marketing gone mad | Main | It's action--but is it collective? » I'm leaving!25 Feb 2008 03:18 pm Comments (46)
The contract under which they joined makes it pretty clear that the intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment was the individual one, and that the "collectivist interpretation" is a modern invention. Of course, nobody genuinely believes otherwise anyhow; they just pretend to. It probably shouldn't really be called an "interpretation" at all, because when you intentionally construe someone's words to be mean other than what you know they meant, you aren't really interpreting them. 
I think there is a small but enthusiastic Vermont secession movement as well. These initiatives will be humorous until its a Latino stronghold like New Mexico. But thats after the 2008 election, lets ignore it.
Feel free to throw this bad boy in the post http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg Montana: just another big red welfare state! I have this handy because as a Bostonian, discussions of federal spending and the high correlation between anti-government attitudes and pro government-money ones inveriably descents into bitching about the Big Dig. $14 billion over twenty years--what, do you want the mafia to starve?
If Montana has an individual right to bear arms in their state constitution the net effect of a Supreme Court ruling on the state would be zilch.
Of course, nobody genuinely believes otherwise anyhow; they just pretend to. I disagree. The collective-rights brainwash has been on spin cycle long enough that IMO many of these people do believe it.
The contract under which they joined makes it pretty clear that the intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment was the individual one, As bad as the “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment is, the argument being made by the MT SecState that there was a “bilateral contract” with the federal government upon which they entered into the Union as a State may actually be worse. Here’s the text of the Enabling Act (which is incorporated into the Montana Constitution as the “Compact”): http://www.leg.mt.gov/content/mtcode_const/enabling_act.pdf You’ll note that while the Montana State constitution talks about the right of an individual to keep and bear arms no such language is included in the actual Enabling Act (or “Compact”) that the MT SecState is now trying to claim acts as a “bilateral contract.” That the people of Montana through their elected representatives may have seen fit to put such language into their State constitution is terrific but it isn’t binding upon the federal government.
toxic: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Montana's constitution gives more protection to gun owners and gun buyers than the US constitution, and Congress passes a law that is US-constitutional under a "no individual right" interpretation, then a federal law would violate Montana's constitution, and there would be a conflict between a state and the federal government ... Thus implying that there would be an impact, greater than zilch. Right?
toxic: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Montana's constitution gives more protection to gun owners and gun buyers than the US constitution, and Congress passes a law that is US-constitutional under a "no individual right" interpretation, then a federal law would violate Montana's constitution, and there would be a conflict between a state and the federal government ... No, because when Montana says it provides greater protection to gun owners and gun buyers in its State constitution, the protection it is providing is against its own actions and NOT the actions of the federal government or other State governments.
Hey Jack. How much of Montana is owned by the Federal Government? National Parks, army bases, etc.? In states like Utah and Alaska, the federal government is the largest land owner. If they own the bulk of the state, shouldn't they pony up to maintain their property? Just asking.
If you can find a breakdown that shows that the federal monies sent to Montana are used to maintain federal government property I'll be all ears, but it's a long and strong pattern that tax money flows out of urban, mostly blue areas, and into rural, mostly red areas. Frequently, this is primarily in the form of subsidies.
I don't think states should be allowed to secede, but I do think the union should consider expelling states from time to time - just to keep the rest in line. I have long been an advocate for throwing Texas out of the union. Among other benefits, it would disqualify any future Bushes from becoming President.
but it's a long and strong pattern that tax money flows out of urban, mostly blue areas, and into rural, mostly red areas. Frequently, this is primarily in the form of subsidies. While it is probably correct that a large portion of federal money flow into Montana is not directed at maintaining federal properties, the agricultural subsidies that comprise a nontrivial chunk of the remainder would not exactly be a devestating loss in that there would a significant offset by the removal of federal income taxation. All in theory, of course, since it's obviously not going to happen. Also worth noting that the average suburban or urban area, if it cut itself off from rural areas, would be on rationed electricity within one day, exhausted of fresh dairy products within 2-3 days, exhausted of fresh meat, fruits, and vegetables in one week, exhausted of frozen goods in 1-2 weeks, exhausted of most processed and canned goods in two weeks, exhausted of most general-purpose dry goods in three weeks or less, and exhausted of refined oil products in under a month. Available supplies to facilitiate electrical production and water and sewer processing might last up to a month, in most cases far less. Cities and most suburban areas do not self-sustain; it's not entirely clear to me whether the amazing Blue-to-Red subsidy transfer people speak of is real, or whether it's merely a convoluted, indirect way of paying for the real cost of goods and services that flow in from or through the agency of rural areas.
"Cities and most suburban areas do not self-sustain; it's not entirely clear to me whether the amazing Blue-to-Red subsidy transfer people speak of is real, or whether it's merely a convoluted, indirect way of paying for the real cost of goods and services that flow in from or through the agency of rural areas." The more likely contributor is that every state has the same number of Senators so each Senator getting their pork project though is worth a lot more per capita in a low population state versus a high one.
I think both anony-mous and JordanT are correct. Certainly a lot of the federal cash that flows into rural states is also designed to benefit urban areas, or at least do something urbanites want (such as subsidies to help pay for environmental protection efforts tied to the extraction industries, etc.) But there is also a lot of pork. Alaska has very few paved roads given its size, but those paved roads are damn nice thanks to Sen. Stevens.
The Blue-to-Red balance of flow comes from two major factors: 1) Military salaries. The salary paid to a soldier at Fort Bliss, Texas, is counted as money going to a red state. Since the red states, in general, are better suited to large military facilities, military salaries are going to get paid disproportionately to people in red states. 2) Retirement. Old people tend to move south when they retire; having paid Social Security taxes in the blue states, they draw their Social Security and Medicare benefits in the red states.
"I don't think states should be allowed to secede": the Constitution appears to allow it. The objection is that they'll be blasted to smithereens by someone like nice Mr Lincoln, but that's not a legal objection. As for Montana, everyone who opposes Globalization just knows that it'll be better off without free trade with the other states.
I fully admit that there is no excuse for agriculture subsidies. I also admit that tax dollars generally flow from the blue states to the red states. And more generally, from the urban areas to the rural areas. But I find it hard to believe that this is done for the rural areas benefit (with the exception of agriculture subsidies). I don’t live in a red state, but I do live in a rural area. When I look around and see how the government’s money is being spent in the rural areas around me, it is all being spent for the benefit of New York City and the Federal Government. I can’t but help think that much the of subsidy that the blue states offer the red states is like similar to subsidy that New York city offers the upstate. For example, where are most of the jails in New York State? They are upstate of course. Where do most of the Criminals come from? Downstate of course. Does this represent of subsidy of Upstate by downstate? I don’t think so. I think it is just placing jails in the most economical location. The same could be said of the parks. Sure we go to the Adirondack park system from time to time. But most visitors are from “the city”. As for the Catskills, forget it. Poor rural hicks can work there, but they can’t go there. Also, who voted through a bond issue to buy upstate land and put it in the state park system against strong upstate opposition? Should all of this be considered a subsidy for up state when they did not even want it? We could go on to other issues. The Upstate area has far more universities then it needs for its own population. Most of these draw students from “The City” who want get away from mommy but still want a cheap state education. Others are just plan good enough that they draw people from downstate. Think Cornell for example. But BU is also mostly used by people from “The City”. Should the government money that is spent on these collages be considered a subsidy? Large amounts of several counties are owned by “The City” to safe guard their water supplies. Then there is the fact that people from the City own a lot of second homes in the upstate regions. So they pay property taxes as if they were full time residents but do not use the services as much as a full time resident would. Should this be considered a subsidy? Or simply due compensation for driving housing prices up?
And don’t forget Fort Drum. Is all the money that the military spends upstate a subsidy? And what about the fact that upstate populations are aging and so draw social security and other government programs for the elderly at a greater rate than downstate? Is this a subsidy when their labors in the past helped build up New York State back in its glory days? They we build it for them and they think we owe them something for the privilege. Oh, and don’t forget that most of us rural folk do not make any money off of agriculture any more. That is one of the reasons that farm subsidies are such a big scam. They mostly go to a wealthy few.
Re: These initiatives will be humorous until its a Latino stronghold like New Mexico. No "Latino" part of the country is going to secede (at least as long we don't start herding them into gulags). Those people are here for a reason and if they didn't want to be in the United States they know the direction to go home. Sure there are a handful of fringe radicals who say they want to take the Southwest back to Mexico, but we need no more fear them than we need fear the neo-Confederates of Georgia doing the same. Re: Cities and most suburban areas do not self-sustain The entire United States cannot self-sustain. If we cut ourselves off from the world we'd run out of oil and vital metals in a few months. The point here however is that it's the populous areas of the country which are the source of most of the federal government's revenues, which are transferred, disproportionately, to rural areas. There's probably good reason for that transfer, but let's not pretend it isn't a form of welfare. Re: Since the red states, in general, are better suited to large military facilities Yes, they are in nice warm, pleasant climates. God forbid our soldiers should ever need to fight in the snow and cold! Re: The Blue-to-Red balance of flow comes from two major factors: Add a third biggie: agricultural subsidies. Re: the Constitution appears to allow it. You will no more find the word "secession" in the Constitution than you will find "abortion". The Constitution does allow for its own dissolution, but only by 3/4 of states voting for a new Convention (after which any state that wished to opt out would probably be out)
The point here however is that it's the populous areas of the country which are the source of most of the federal government's revenues, which are transferred, disproportionately, to rural areas. There's probably good reason for that transfer, but let's not pretend it isn't a form of welfare. It's a form of redistribution. The "welfare" schtick is just a way for a certain seague of affluent blue-staters to sneer about it. Re: Since the red states, in general, are better suited to large military facilities: Yes, they are in nice warm, pleasant climates. God forbid our soldiers should ever need to fight in the snow and cold! Yeah, exactly, more of the sneering. I suggest you go familiarize yourself with the locations of military bases, then put in some quality time studying United States climatography, and then overlay the two for a surprising revelation.
I'm so proud of my home state. Not really. I can't wait to leave.
Without taking a position on the individualist vs. collectivist argument, the contract law point the Montana Secretary of State makes is really specious. ahem: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Oh, there are plenty of neo-Confederates in Montana. I spent a few months living in the Rockies out there. The nearby town, Philipsburg, had a population of about 900 and a local economy completely dominated by alcoholism. (Really, there was nothing else to do.) One of the bars there had a Confederate flag proudly displayed on the wall. The name of the bar? "The White Front." It took some pointing out (and a few drunken bar fights and local rants against "the niggers and the kikes") for me to get it.
Southpaw--I read that, and I raise you with the response that Baldus wrote in a consilium to the city-state of Florence: "It makes no difference whatsoever if Florence decides to claim the rights and privileges of the Roman Republic in their statutes [with regards to treason law]. They aren't the Roman Republic; they have no authority to claim such overwhelming authority, and so, no, Florence cannot claim all the privileges of the Roman Republic under law."
IIRC, Texas is unique in that according to the terms of its accession to the Union, it is allowed to secede, or, to divide itself into as many as five states. An artifact of the fact that it is the only state that was once recognized by the US as a sovereign nation. MW, regarding your wet dream of evicting Texas to prevent another Bush, I believe the most likely candidate would be Jeb, so I kinda doubt your dream would be very effective. As an aside, tossing Arkansas would not have been much good in keeping Hillary from the Senate, or the White House, eh? Check with your doc. Methinks p'raps you are suffering from BDS, and it is interfering with your reasoning ability. :-)
Marcus, I suspect mw is simply a jerk who wouldn't be too terribly disappointed if everything south of the Mason-Dixon line sank into the sea. JonF, I think dearieme bases his/her theory on the Ninth Amendment, "all powers not prohibited to the States are reserved by them". The Constitution, as you point out, does not even mention secession, therefore making it a power reserved to the States by the Ninth Amendment.
Re: then put in some quality time studying United States climatography, and then overlay the two for a surprising revelation. I've traveled through all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, at various times of they year. I am rather well acquainted with our various climate zones. And before whining about others "sneering" you would do well to remove the beam in your own eye. Re: Texas is unique in that according to the terms of its accession to the Union, it is allowed to secede, or, to divide itself into as many as five states. This is an urban legend. Texas can no more secede than any other state (see: the unpleasantness of 1861-65-- Texas was part of that on the Confederate side and it was corraled back into the Union). As for dividing itself, any state may do that provided Congress agrees to admit the new states. Maine and West Virginia are results of such a state division. Texas meanwhile calved off parts of itself when it joined the Union, which pieces went into Oklahoma, New Mexico and Colorado. Re: The Constitution, as you point out, does not even mention secession, therefore making it a power reserved to the States by the Ninth Amendment. Secession is not a "power". The Constitution does specify how it may be dissolved and therefore its dissolution is limited to that means.
For every Dollar Montana's send to that Evil Federal Gov'ment they get back $1.51. (Talk about welfare!) So secede it you wish - but you better raise you state taxes by 50% Montanta!
The Second Amendment, unlike most everything else in the Bill of Rights, has never been incorporated - that is, it is not subject to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equality before the law. So, as Toxic points out, "if Montana has an individual right to bear arms in their state constitution the net effect of a Supreme Court ruling on the state would be zilch."
JonF: "Secession is not a "power". The Constitution does specify how it may be dissolved and therefore its dissolution is limited to that means." But does the departure of a single state, or a few states (say, less than half) necessarily imply the dissolution of the Constitution? Presumably the remaining states would continue to be united under it, in which case it would continue to exist and be in force, thus not dissolved.
re: agricultural subsidies How much of the agricultural subsidies to Montana went to Ted Turner? How much to other non-residents, individual or corporate? What fraction of the Federal corn-based ethanol boondoggle dollars wind up in the hands of Iowa farmers, and what fraction winds up in the pockets of urban-dwelling ADM stockholders? Absent detailed study, I'm not sure that it's fair to treat such subsidies as flowing into the "red states" rather than through them.
Texas v. White: And no, SCOTUS will not find for the collectivist theory.
MMMM if Montana does secede would that be considered "enhanced separation"?
Everybody's very familiar with the 2nd Amendment, but I wish they were as familiar with the Articles of Confederation. From Article VI: "No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." It's pretty clear to me what the intent was, and pretty clear that this was the same intent as was present in the Second Amendment. Yes, the new Constitution superseded the Articles. But they hardly even updated the language when they wrote the Bill of Rights - "well-regulated militia." As for how it interacts with the Montana constitution - well, Montana is free to regulate its own militia however it wants to. DC's handgun ban has no effect on Montana's gun laws. Unless the guns cross state lines, even the federal government isn't/shouldn't be involved.
Ahh, let 'em go. Then they can have their guns and their beef too. See, as a new nation (Montainia?) they won't belong to NAFTA, so we can slap a tariff on their exports that will have them begging to rescind their secession in no time. At that point we can name whatever terms we wish; organic beef, wildflower preserves, pink chaps, whatever. They're like a teenager who threatens to move out if he doesn't get his way. I say, let me help you pack your bag.
It is a somewhat curious fact of the history of the Second Amendment that, unlike most of the other parts of the Bill of Rights, it simply does not apply to state or local laws. Thus, the numerically much greater array of state laws on gun control — such as laws against carrying a concealed gun — are not immediately affected by the Amendment, however it is interpreted.
This case presents the Court with the chance to incorporate the Second Amendment with the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth, a process which has been done with several other Bill of Rights provisions, namely the first, third, fourth, sixth, and some parts of the eighth. I find it hard to believe that this Court will not incorporate, or even find against, the individual right to bear arms.
The best way to secede from the Union is quietly. Rake in the federal subsidies, but cheat on taxes. Give lip service to the gun control laws, but look the other way when it comes to enforcement. Liberals act outraged that anyone would dare shirk public sacrifice at the altar of Goddess America, but a major reason why liberals are so gung-ho about big government is because they don't take it seriously in their personal lives. They hire illegal immigrant nannies, they smoke pot, they keep a Saturday Night Special under their pillows. What, you think pro-Federal Reserve economists don't invest in gold and euros? If Red Staters ever treat the government the same way that liberals do, there goes all the tax revenue. After that, the United States may continue to exist in theory as the biggest government in the world, but in reality its jurisdiction will be confined to the District of Columbia and its revenue to the admission it charges (gold-backed currency only, please) to the Smithsonian Museums. So those of you who actually like the idea of a Leviathan State should be relieved at this news item. That Montana is contesting this in court means that they still take the federal government seriously. The future of the federal bureaucracy will be short indeed when you start suspending gun rights and they go, "Yeah, sure. Whatever."
Hey People,....Just remember that Montuckey is the Saudia Arabia of Coal. Which may be valuable if clean coal technologies ever make the market.
re: Marcus:IIRC, Texas ...is allowed to secede, or, to divide itself into as many as five states. An artifact of the fact that it is the only state that was once recognized by the US as a sovereign nation. Texas can divide itself, but the secession thing is a popular myth. I read that in the Dictionary of Texas while waiting on some documents at the state archive.
Re: Texas can divide itself Yes, because any state can. However Congress retains full power to admit a state into the Union and Texas could not force Congress to do so against its express will.
JonF wrote: Secession is not a "power". The Constitution does specify how it may be dissolved and therefore its dissolution is limited to that means. But you realize, of course, that the word "power" is not defined in the Constitution. And no, the Constitution does not specify in any limiting sense how it may be dissolved, even though it arguably specifies one means by which it may be resolved. For every Dollar Montana's send to that Evil Federal Gov'ment they get back $1.51. (Talk about welfare!) So secede it you wish - but you better raise you state taxes by 50% Montanta! Maybe. But the point made by previous commentors remains. Think of it this way. If DC (where I live) were a state, it would be the bluest of the states in the Union. It would also be the biggest net gainer of federal spending. Does this mean that DC is somehow unfairly benefitting from federal "welfare"? Or does it simply mean that the several States, acting in their own collective interest, have decided to create a capital region in which a "disproportionate" share of federal money will be spent, not for the direct benefit of DC, but rather for the benefit of the nation as whole (blue and red state)? Until you can offer a detailed analysis of this objection, the argument that redstaters are receiving "welfare" is subject to dispute.
The Second Amendment, unlike most everything else in the Bill of Rights, has never been incorporated - that is, it is not subject to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equality before the law. So, as Toxic points out, "if Montana has an individual right to bear arms in their state constitution the net effect of a Supreme Court ruling on the state would be zilch." Actually, no. There is also in the Constitution a provision known as the Supremacy Clause. This means that, if the federal government decides to regulate in an area in which it has Constitutional authority to do so (e.g., to regulate interstate commerce), and if such federal government action conflicts with state law, then federal law trumps any conflicting state law. Thus, if the federal government were to regulate the sale of guns -- nearly all of which travel in interstate commerce and are thus subject to federal regulation -- then Montana's state constitutional guarantee of a right to bear arms would be effectively null.
The prospect of Montana or any other state seceding depends on the Supreme Court reversing its 1869 ruling in Texas v. White, in which secession is expressly prohibited. This is judge-made rather than statute law, of course, but I think it still stands.
"IIRC, Texas is unique in that according to the terms of its accession to the Union, it is allowed to secede, or, to divide itself into as many as five states. An artifact of the fact that it is the only state that was once recognized by the US as a sovereign nation." Not true. Vermont was an independent republic from 1777 to 1791. All this talk on the legalities of succession are amusing. If secession ever occurs, this is how it will happen: a motion is put in, it's voted on and approved by legislature and voters, and then the state is independent. This is the 21st century, there will be no military actions from the U.S. Especially after the horrible precedent they just set in Kosovo. Why will the majority of said citizens approve this after said secession action? Cause when tax time comes around, they won't owe the federal government anything. Granted, people that are dependent on the federal government for their livelihoods will be mad about the secession and be against it, but they make up a delightfully small proportion of the number of people in Montana. They can move to neighboring states if they refuse to accept it.
Texas is absolutely entitled to seceed from the U.S. at any time that her residents feel it is the right thing to do. We don't even have to establish a legal reason for doing so. At the time Texas entered the U.S. as a state, Texas reserved the right to seceed and even wrote it into our state constitution. If Texas were to seceed and capture our oil, the U.S. government would be doing good to keep their lights on. They would have to beg for Texas' help to bring their soldiers home from everywhere in the world, because they wouldn't have the diesel and gasoline to stomp around the globe, policing the world. Also, a large percentage of U.S. soldiers are from Texas. Those soldiers might rather serve here at home, protecting the borders of the Republic Of Texas from all enemies foreign or domestic, which would mean the U.S. would be left with a seriously deficient military for trying to bully the Republic Of Texas back into the U.S. The Trans Texas Corridor, southern leg of the NASCO NAFTA Superhighway, by itself will bankrupt the U.S. to build (price tag, $180 billion). All three of the current frontrunning candidates, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, have included on their websites plans for the U.S. taxpayers to fund the construction of the Trans Texas Corridor, because Grupo Feruvial (parent company of Cintra), the Spanish firm that intends to build and collect tolls from the supercorridors, can't get funding. They have lost 49% of their value and credit is too expensive for them to obtain now. If the Trans Texas Corridor were built, even without the rest of the Central NASCO NAFTA Supercorridor being completed, the U.S. would face famine. The top minds here understand that. The trouble in Texas is simply that there is so much money involved, and the project literally means the survival of the foreign corporations involved, so they will stop at nothing to get this pushed through. With one stroke, Texas could end the threat this corridor poses for Texas and the U.S. Texas could end the war in Iraq and lower the cost of gasoline in Texas to about .65 cents per gallon. Oil sold on the world market would increase more in price, so Texas' surplus oil could be sold at a huge premium, earning Texas oil companies hundreds of billions in profits that Washington couldn't touch. There is a growing rumble in Texas for secession. This is Governor Perry's last term, due to term limits. He is the most hated man in Texas and while he may believe that he will succeed in getting one of his cronies into the Governor's seat, I've got news for him. There are two Democrats and six Republicans who are vieing for their party's endorsement to run for governor. Of those candidates, only two are not secretly organizing and planning secession, and we've already got the dirt on them. Texas will seceed and the people of the entire world should thank God fasting that we have the guts to do it. If we didn't, Americans would soon face starvation as the sell-outs in Washington and Austin plan to pave the bread basket that feeds the world. There is more money in secession than there is in selling out the state to foreign corporations. Money talks.
Section 1. Popular sovereignty. All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Section 2. Self-government. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary. Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
They don't actually threaten to secede, at least as I read it. They say they'll "claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation" (which in the case of territories becoming US states is somewhat vague to me, but has been pretty clearly established since 1865 or so as not including secession).
Posted by Mike S. | February 25, 2008 3:31 PM