Sometimes you just have to laugh smugly .... I predicted a few weeks ago
that many Americans would increasingly consider themselves disenfranchised
if the US continued the pattern of the coasts voting Democrat and the
central landmass voting Republican. Admittedly New Mexico and Colorado
break up the map, but in general this has been the voting pattern for the
last three or four elections.
Well it appears that more than 100,000 Americans have petitioned the White House to allow their states to secede from the US, after President Barack Obama's re-election. The Whitehouse is forced to answer if any one question gets more than 25,000 supporters (ours is 100,000).
 |
| 2012 Final US Election Results |
Well it appears that more than 100,000 Americans have petitioned the White House to allow their states to secede from the US, after President Barack Obama's re-election. The Whitehouse is forced to answer if any one question gets more than 25,000 supporters (ours is 100,000).
Now technically the US constitution contains no clause allowing states to
leave the union, and indeed that fought a war about this (and not by the
way, to free the slaves as many people think). But most of the petitions are
quoting the opening line of America's 'Declaration of Independence' from
Britain, in which America's founders stated their right to "dissolve the
political bands" and form a new nation ....
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
....... which is about as strong an argument as the gun lobby uses to support the right to carry weapons about. The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms", is actually not quite the same when read in the full "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" .... which implies another thing altogether.
So oddly, while the US courts (District of Colombia decision) backs the gun lobby, by taking the context of a few words out of a larger sentence, it will most certainly not apply that very same 'logic' to another part of a sentence, from another part of the same document ...... its an odd old world.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
....... which is about as strong an argument as the gun lobby uses to support the right to carry weapons about. The phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms", is actually not quite the same when read in the full "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" .... which implies another thing altogether.
So oddly, while the US courts (District of Colombia decision) backs the gun lobby, by taking the context of a few words out of a larger sentence, it will most certainly not apply that very same 'logic' to another part of a sentence, from another part of the same document ...... its an odd old world.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.