Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Crossroads Inc.
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9233
Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
Contact:

Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede.

Post by Crossroads Inc. »

News from the East Valley Tribune
From the same people who think it is a good idea to deny anyone who isn't American from US Hospitals, as well as bane children being born her from becoming US citizens, we bring you a bill that would let a group of people "Decide" what Federal laws Arizona would and would not follow.
A new proposal at the Arizona Legislature will take the state's fight with the feds to a whole new level: It would let the state actually nullify federal laws that legislators believe are invalid.

The measure crafted by Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, would set up a committee of 12 lawmakers to review federal laws and regulations to determine which are "outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal in the United States Constitution."
A majority vote that Congress or a federal agency exceeded its authority would trigger an automatic referral to the Legislature which would have 60 days to make a final decision. Ratification of the panel's recommendation would mean the state and its residents "shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order."

But Klein said SB 1433 is not challenging the fact that Arizona is part of the United States, at least not exactly.
"We're not seceding," she said. "We're looking at nullifying laws coming from the federal government that are mandates that are not constitutional."
The measure is just one of more than a dozen introduced this session to challenge or limit federal authority. Issues range from requiring federal agencies to register with local sheriffs before coming into a county to declaring the right of Arizonans to have guns, produce carbon dioxide and even create their own nuclear fuel free of federal regulation.

Klein acknowledged her idea, if adopted here and elsewhere, could result in each state deciding which federal laws are enforceable within their own limits. But she said that is necessary - especially given the current administration.

"We have in Washington a particularly overreaching administration as well as regulations that are coming out of agencies that are not even mandated from Congress," Klein said. "The states have a right to stand up to these kinds of onerous regulations."
The bottom line, Klein said, is states' rights.

"We have dual sovereignty," she said. "Our constitution is on par with the federal Constitution. But lately, there's been a creep over the last 20 years."
Klein said she's not presuming that Washington will simply accept Arizona's decision to nullify some of its laws and regulations, with any fight likely to wind up in court. But her measure says the only court ruling that Arizona will accept is that of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said Klein's legislation is based on a flawed premise that state constitutions and statutes are on par with federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

"The idea of nullification is to say that you can have a state statute or constitutional issue that then preempts everything above it," she said. "It just doesn't work that way."

Sinema said that doesn't mean Congress or the administration never oversteps its authority. But she said if the state has a problem with a specific law, the proper procedure is for the Legislature to vote to file suit on the specific issue and let the issue work its way through the courts, not to simply declare the federal law null and void.

"And the governor can file suit whenever she wants," Sinema said. "And she can do it on behalf of the state."
Klein agreed that anyone who believes a federal law or rule is illegal already has the right to challenge it in court. But she said that is a cumbersome process.
"Very few states and individuals actually stand up for their rights when it comes to federal mandates," she said. "We need to look at how the federal mandates are being thrust upon our states."

She specifically singled out "Obama-care," last year's national health care law, and its requirement for individuals to obtain insurance or face a fine. If nothing else, she said, that flies directly in the face of a measure Arizona voters approved just last year providing state constitutional protections against such requirements.
"So it's really incumbent upon us in the states to define and look at Article I, Section 8 of what the purview is of the federal government," Klein said. That section defines the powers of Congress, ranging from collecting taxes and defending the nation to regulating interstate commerce.

Not all of the mandates that have upset legislators have been unilateral. Klein agreed that Arizona is under certain obligations because it accepts federal money.
For example, Klein complained about the inability of Arizona to cut its Medicaid program. But the state could eliminate all mandates by not taking federal dollars, as was the case before the state joined the Medicaid system in 1982.

Klein said the answer for that would be for the federal government to simply give block grants to Arizona "and let us create our own rules."
Sinema said Klein is mistaken if she believes the nation's high court will side with states in their battles with the federal government.
She also said there is a real solution for Klein and others who don't like what's coming out of Washington.
"Elect new people to Congress," she said.
As if this was the straw that broke the camels back, shortly there after a prominent Democrat proposed a bill that would have Tucson and Pima county Succeed, not from the US, but from Arizona.
Southern Arizona residents want to create new state: Baja Arizona
by The Arizona Republic on Feb. 24, 2011, under Arizona Republic News

Some southern Arizonans have had enough of the state Legislature’s efforts this year to assert its state sovereignty.

Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson, proposed an amendment Thursday that would have allowed Pima County to secede from the state. The amendment was attached to a Republican state sovereignty bill that would allow the Legislature to pick and choose which federal laws it will follow.

The Senate Committee of the Whole voted against Aboud’s amendment, but supported the underlying Senate Bill 1433. It now goes to a final vote of the Senate.

Aboud said her amendment was intended to be as ridiculous as she believes the underlying bill to be.

“But while this is tongue-in-cheek, I can’t tell you the overwhelming support I’m getting from southern Arizona to secede,” Aboud said. “We don’t want to be part of a state that continues to embarrass Arizona.”

Sen. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, supported the amendment, as did Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.

“Out of all the problems facing the state of Arizona, this is the type of bill we should not be debating,” Gallardo said. “Let’s focus on what voters really want us to focus on … education, health care, Arizona’s economy.”

Sen. Lori Klein, R-Anthem, defended her bill.

“This gives our body the ability to look at Obamacare and some other things that truly will throw this state into the third world country we don’t want to be,” Klein said.

Despite the failure of Aboud’s amendment, the secession idea seems to be growing.

An organization called Start Our State has started a Facebook page and proposes to name the new state Baja Arizona.

Organizers acknowledge there are big hurdles in creating Baja Arizona. They must first get on the ballot, then get approval from the Legislature or from state voters to allow the break off.

A new state constitution would have to be drafted and approved, plus they’d have to get the OK from Congress and the president.

Start Our State co-Chairman Paul Eckerstrom told the Arizona Daily Star that, at a minimum, the drive to create a 51st state sends a message that Pima County doesn’t go along with priorities being outlined in Phoenix.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!
erik_t
Jedi Master
Posts: 1108
Joined: 2008-10-21 08:35pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by erik_t »

I am entirely in favor of Arizona (and the rest of the union) succeeding.

I fixed it. What's the matter, couldn't send a PM? Had to wait until I stumbled onto your snide comment? Fucker.
--Lagmonster
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Alyeska »

Montana has a dozen "Nullification" laws being considered as well. Its annoying as hell. At least the Governor is reading the Republicans the riot act over this bullshit.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/2011 ... namerican/
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
eion
Jedi Master
Posts: 1303
Joined: 2009-12-03 05:07pm
Location: NoVA

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by eion »

succeeding, present participle of suc•ceed (Verb)
1. Achieve what one aims or wants to: "he succeeded in winning a pardon".
2. (of a plan, request, or undertaking) Lead to the desired result.

seceding, present participle of se•cede (Verb)
1. Withdraw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization: "the kingdom of Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830".

Now that that's over, I do love that at the same time Republicans are passing a bunch of laws that are sure to wind up in Federal Court and are sure to be struck down as unconstitutional they are stalling the confirmation of judges to the Federal Bench. I would love to ascribe this to some sort of Republican two pronged master-plan to cripple the judicial branch, but I just don't think they're that smart.
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by FSTargetDrone »

"We have in Washington a particularly overreaching administration as well as regulations that are coming out of agencies that are not even mandated from Congress," Klein said. "The states have a right to stand up to these kinds of onerous regulations."
The bottom line, Klein said, is states' rights.
No, the bottom line is that "states' rights" was (messily) settled in 1865.
Image
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Simon_Jester »

States do have rights- there are broad areas of legislation and government where they have a constitutionally enshrined right to set their own policies. That hasn't changed.

But it doesn't mean what the far right thinks it means, and they are in for a grave disappointment if they try to make it mean that. Nullification isn't going to work. Period. The states will not get away with it; neither the national Democratic nor the national Republican party wants to preside over the dissolution of the union. Neither of them can be forced to do so against their will.

It's as absurd as the 'sovereign citizen' movement, if potentially more dangerous because it's being practiced by more powerful entities.

That said, I can't shake the feeling that many of the states which propose this kind of nonsense seriously are the ones that the union would be just as well off without. Montana as an independent country governed by the Tea Party, as opposed to Montana electing Tea Party candidates to Washington, might honestly serve the interests of the American people better. It wouldn't serve Montanans better. But it would simplify a lot of America's problems if the people trying to turn it into a third-world country self-segregated themselves into one, rather than trying to impose it on their first-world neighbors.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Edi »

eion wrote:succeeding, present participle of suc•ceed (Verb)
1. Achieve what one aims or wants to: "he succeeded in winning a pardon".
2. (of a plan, request, or undertaking) Lead to the desired result.

seceding, present participle of se•cede (Verb)
1. Withdraw formally from membership in a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization: "the kingdom of Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830".

Now that that's over, I do love that at the same time Republicans are passing a bunch of laws that are sure to wind up in Federal Court and are sure to be struck down as unconstitutional they are stalling the confirmation of judges to the Federal Bench. I would love to ascribe this to some sort of Republican two pronged master-plan to cripple the judicial branch, but I just don't think they're that smart.
THANK YOU! At least someone knows some proper English here.

Seriously, the next person to misuse and confuse succeed/secede gets HoSed. It's even more fucking annoying than people misusing rein/reign/rain. Learn your own fucking language!
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Broomstick »

Last time we had this selective nullification of Federal law bullshit raise it's this seriously head we wound up with 5 years of civil war and something like three quarters of a million people dead. Similar results this time would be considerably more bloody. People are going crazy.

'Scuze me, I'll be out back digging a hidey-hole to cower in until the noise dies down.

More and more it's looking like it will take a complete melt down of the US to achieve fundamental change. That will not be a good thing if it happens.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
User avatar
Zaune
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7552
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Zaune »

Broomstick wrote:More and more it's looking like it will take a complete melt down of the US to achieve fundamental change. That will not be a good thing if it happens.
The question is, would perpetuating the status quo for another twenty or fifty or a hundred years be better, or even have a smaller body-count?
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog
User avatar
Ryan Thunder
Village Idiot
Posts: 4139
Joined: 2007-09-16 07:53pm
Location: Canada

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Ryan Thunder »

Edi wrote:THANK YOU! At least someone know some proper English here.
Bolding mine. :lol:
SDN Worlds 5: Sanctum
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Edi »

Ryan Thunder wrote:
Edi wrote:THANK YOU! At least someone know some proper English here.
Bolding mine. :lol:
*waves hand*

These are not the typoes you are looking for... :P

I think I originally had that as "some people know", then changed it, but yes, I should have checked that post better for errors. A classic case of slipping on a banana peel, so to speak... :D
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
User avatar
JME2
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12258
Joined: 2003-02-02 04:04pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by JME2 »

Broomstick wrote:More and more it's looking like it will take a complete melt down of the US to achieve fundamental change. That will not be a good thing if it happens.
No, it's not a good thing at all.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Simon_Jester »

I don't know how big a meltdown is going to be needed.

The situation is 'worse' than the 1930s in that there's so much bullshit* in the air that actually solving any problems requires a political stimulus large enough to force politicians to cut the crap. And in that at the moment, there doesn't seem to be a coherent political plan on offer, backed by influential political figures, that represents a way to change things in short order. There's no obvious sign of an electable person or group who, if elected tomorrow, would start fixing the country- Obama promised to be such, but then didn't deliver, which made the problem of actually finding someone to do the job that much harder.

On the other hand, the political support for fixing things hasn't disappeared; it's just dissolved for lack of leadership. It can recrystallize. I'm not sure whether to expect something like a political repeat of the sixties (which, yes, no sane person wants to see, with all the violence and riots), or something considerably worse.
_______

*I think this is an interesting term to use in politics, because it refers not so much to active lies as to statements that are made without regard to their truth: people who neither know nor care whether what they're saying is true, as long as it has the desired effect on the audience. Nearly every major institution of American politics is permeated with bullshit in this sense of the term: truisms that people repeat without thinking about them, "zombie lie" style policy proposals that have failed repeatedly but are still proposed as if they were viable solutions to our problems, and people who are so busy thinking about being 'electable' as if it were a game of adding up demographic blocs that they forget that no one's going to win an election by saying "vote for me, I can get other people to vote for me!"

Which isn't a new phenomenon, to be sure, but the atmosphere has become so choked with it that policy-making and actual governing become nearly impossible. The nation runs by inertia more than by statesmanship, and even the most worrying long term trends are ignored because this year, or this quarter, or even this week, it's easier to ignore them and bullshit about them than it is to do anything. Often because other bullshitters will make action on the issues difficult.

Even during the Bush administration this was fairly manageable, or at least survivable in the short term. But now the metaphorical party's over and our inability to agree on an answer to any question more complicated than "shall we have another drink" is starting to bite us.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Zed
Padawan Learner
Posts: 487
Joined: 2010-05-19 08:56pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Zed »

Simon_Jester wrote:*I think this is an interesting term to use in politics, because it refers not so much to active lies as to statements that are made without regard to their truth: people who neither know nor care whether what they're saying is true, as long as it has the desired effect on the audience.
I can see you've read Harry Frankfurt ;)
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Simon_Jester »

That I have.

Personally, I think it's worth injecting more short Anglo-Saxon words into national political discourse, bullshit being the single most important example. It carries a useful meaning- you can try to say the same thing with words like "spin" and "propaganda," but it doesn't really work because the average person doesn't think of those words the same way they think of "bullshit."

This is the same observation that takes a single-issue platform party run by a man who talks as though he's about one degree of separation from a deranged hobo... and gets forty thousand votes for governor: the famous "Rent Is Too Damn High Party." Granted that's a tiny minority of the state population. But McMillan wouldn't have gotten even that far if his use of simple terms that speak to real, concrete problems didn't resonate.

America has reached a point where our political realities can only be described accurately by using profanity.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Sinanju
Youngling
Posts: 97
Joined: 2010-07-24 01:40am

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Sinanju »

Not being from Arizona, I wasn't too familiar what sort of platform Lori Klein ran on. A quick Google reveals that 'the Tea Party supports me' was a big part of it. So, this is yet another example of somebody so busy wrapping themselves in the Constitution they couldn't be bothered to read it. :lol:
User avatar
Big Orange
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7108
Joined: 2006-04-22 05:15pm
Location: Britain

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Big Orange »

We could hope the Arizonan Tea(nut)baggers end up cutting off their noses to spite their faces by seceding, but on the other hand could this be the dislodging of a small rock that could bring down the rest of the whole rickety dam? :?

But I agree with the concesus that the US bureaucracy on the State and Federal level has seemingly become more slower, more inefficient, with the two party system and office of the POTUS becoming so fossilised, it didn't seem apparent that 2000s Washington DC has demonstrated systemic flaws as potentially bad as the systemic flaws in the 1970s/1980s Soviet Politburo until Obama took charge. We had about a decade of crap, but we had a POTUS of such bad character and limited abilities it kinda of outshone the fundamental problems in big government and big business (decades in the making) that Obama allowed himself to get hamstrung by.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...' - Dr. Evil

'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.' - Typical Randroid

'I think it's gone a little bit wrong.' - The Doctor
User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18683
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Rogue 9 »

FSTargetDrone wrote:
"We have in Washington a particularly overreaching administration as well as regulations that are coming out of agencies that are not even mandated from Congress," Klein said. "The states have a right to stand up to these kinds of onerous regulations."
The bottom line, Klein said, is states' rights.
No, the bottom line is that "states' rights" was (messily) settled in 1865.
This particular issue (that is, nullification, not secession) was settled considerably less messily in 1832. Really, it's been nearly 180 years since this was put down the first time; James Madison was still alive to do it himself, not that South Carolina still didn't take more... direct persuasion from the Jackson administration before sitting down and shutting up. A course in basic civics and governmental history should be required as a qualification for seeking elected office; it would at least avoid some of this overweening bullshit, one would hope.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician
User avatar
ShadowDragon8685
Village Idiot
Posts: 1183
Joined: 2010-02-17 12:44pm

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by ShadowDragon8685 »

Big Orange wrote:We could hope the Arizonan Tea(nut)baggers end up cutting off their noses to spite their faces by seceding, but on the other hand could this be the dislodging of a small rock that could bring down the rest of the whole rickety dam? :?
To be fair, the only Arizonans talking about secession are the ones who are not teabaggers, want nothing to do with the teabaggers, and want to secede from the State of Arizona, remaining inside the Union as their own State.
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Dude...

Way to overwork a metaphor Shadow. I feel really creeped out now.
I am an artist, metaphorical mind-fucks are my medium.
User avatar
Gil Hamilton
Tipsy Space Birdie
Posts: 12962
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:47pm
Contact:

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to succee

Post by Gil Hamilton »

Rogue 9 wrote:This particular issue (that is, nullification, not secession) was settled considerably less messily in 1832. Really, it's been nearly 180 years since this was put down the first time; James Madison was still alive to do it himself, not that South Carolina still didn't take more... direct persuasion from the Jackson administration before sitting down and shutting up. A course in basic civics and governmental history should be required as a qualification for seeking elected office; it would at least avoid some of this overweening bullshit, one would hope.
Given that Jackson's persuasion was "Accept this compromise or I march the army into South Carolina and do what I do best", it could have been alot messier. :)

This is more political theatre though. I'm sure most people behind this know that they can't nullify Federal law, but they can play the small government state's rights martyr for their constituents when this inevitably fails; either it never gets off the ground or the Federal government tells them to stop being stupid and the law gets struck. The latter is what I'm sure they are hoping for, given that the State Congresscritter in question has Obama Tourettes and campaigned on "I'm a Tea Party Candidate! I'm a Tea Party Candidate!"
"Show me an angel and I will paint you one." - Gustav Courbet

"Quetzalcoatl, plumed serpent of the Aztecs... you are a pussy." - Stephen Colbert

"Really, I'm jealous of how much smarter than me he is. I'm not an expert on anything and he's an expert on things he knows nothing about." - Me, concerning a bullshitter
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28846
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Arizona says "UP YOURS" to Federal Law, Tucson to secede

Post by Broomstick »

Zaune wrote:
Broomstick wrote:More and more it's looking like it will take a complete melt down of the US to achieve fundamental change. That will not be a good thing if it happens.
The question is, would perpetuating the status quo for another twenty or fifty or a hundred years be better, or even have a smaller body-count?
Up until this point I think the staus quo has been preferable. Another 20 years of this particular status quo? Yes, it would be preferable to another US Civil War. Yes, the body count would be lower. I don't think, however, it could possibly last 50 years. It would have to somehow get better or ... get worse. I'm not sure at which point years of "worse" becomes worse than a shooting war between US factions, but it would have to be pretty dire. Do keep in mind that the Americans during the Civil War were every bit as brutal and nasty to each other as they have been to external enemies, and the US has NBC capability. It would truly, truly suck.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Post Reply