Ahhh so you are familiar with AOC and Chuckie Schumer!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should Each State Become a Separate Country?
- Thread starter KenH
- Start date
And keep in mind over the course of the 8 year war - some 200,000 men fought in the Continental Army (w/ a max of 50 k at any one time) and some 150,000 from State/Commonwealth militias.
So to answer Kens question - (which I think no one has done) No, we do not need to dissolve the COTUS - AS the purpose of the Constitution was to unite for a common purpose of the (then) 13 colonies. Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave due to the un-constitutional actions of the federal govt. The Feds have put there hands into too many things, that they have no business doing.
Ken said in the OP:
Seems to me that such a division would allow each of the new countries to take care of themselves, paying taxes to only their own country, government spending being only what the people of those countries wanted, and rights granted being only what those countries wanted to allow. That way people could be concerned only with their own country, not what the policies were in other countries.
I aggre with what Ken stated - but if the feds operated the way that it was intended - then instead of "country" we would have "states"
Here is the thing - what is good for NY many not be good for Georgia
Local rule normally is the best! Granted there are some things that can be done more effective as a union. I'm sure that we have all heard of the phrase; "Together, we can do more" . In fact, that is how our Baptist churches are! We are each independent and self governing and autonomous - yet we do have a union in our denomination* - whether it is SBC, ABC, GARBC, BBF, ect
and the united States would be more effective, if we went by the original intent.
* denomination has two meanings
1) an organization of heirechary over a group.
2) Churches of similar beliefs
I see someone has claimed the OP question has not been answered. The Union should be preserved, thus the states should not become separate countries. The solution is for the voters to stop electing the more is better party, which dictates mandate after mandate to wage war on fossil fuel, and common sense.
Those that advocate a cancel culture will cancel your freedoms, from expression to belief.
Those that advocate a cancel culture will cancel your freedoms, from expression to belief.
Note this poster posts complete falsehoods, and not one person calls him out. Where did I say I was born? Colorado!
KenH
Well-Known Member
KenH
Well-Known Member
Thanks! I am aware of the "ignore" function. I just don't like to use it, just like I don't like to block people on Facebook or Twitter(I know there may be good reasons for someone in a toxic relationship with someone to do so). I don't like it when someone blocks me on social media, so I don't want to engage in the practice myself. I figure social media arguments are a means for me to learn better self-control(which I definitely need).
where did he say that?
Ken, I have been experiencing this guy bully and rant on a few people he disagrees with without class and respect for others opinions… so again I suggest you take action immediately.
Your call
Am surely surprised that the mods have let this school-yard bickering continue as long as it has. I feel for any un-believers who may have been lurking to see what this "CHRISTIANITY" stuff is all about!!
Also, the "IGNORE" function is wonderful for maintaining a stable BP. As the old ad said, "Try it, you'll like it!"
Also, the "IGNORE" function is wonderful for maintaining a stable BP. As the old ad said, "Try it, you'll like it!"
Yes, good post. If someone is left, even when they deny being left, I know they will have nothing to offer which will be worth my time. It makes the world a better place, & who doesn’t need that?!
PS-nice guy or not, Ken is on my block list.
KenH
Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity(since @Wingman68 for some reason considers me to be a leftist), I have posted on this board from the AIER website. Does anybody consider AIER to be a leftist organization? AIER | American Institute for Economic Research
I also oppose same-sex marriage, transgenderism, and abortion. Those would be rather strange policy positions for a "leftist" I would think.
mminer237
New Member
The US would be completely destroyed by splitting into 50 countries in any practical sense. Just look at the US under the Articles of Confederation.
The US would go from having the most powerful military on earth to a complete inability to fight anybody without a central government. Hopefully Canada wouldn't invade, but southern border states would have much less funding to stop illegal immigration.
Without a military, central government, or giant economy, the US's soft power would be gone as there's no longer a singular foreign policy or reason for other countries to really care. Along the same lines, the states would all be pitted against each other in any trade deal negotiations. There would no longer be any tariffs or regulatory motivation to buy something from America over buying it from Canada or China.
The Interstate System and rail systems would be greatly impeded. There would be no more consistent driver's licenses, speed limits, car safety or emissions standards, seat belt laws, or DUI laws. Just imagine trying to transport vegetables from California to New York as you now have to go through 10 international border crossings, all with totally different laws.
Medicare, social security, the ACA, the VA, FHA, CDC, NASA, NIH, and USDA would all be gone. A lot of people get help from those policies and agencies which they no longer would. In addition, without federal funding, food scarcity would become a real possibility. Currently the federal government spends a lot on subsidizing food production to ensure a stable food supply. Without that, the Midwest and Great Plains would first of all be a lot poorer, but also produce much less food. So food would be more expensive for everyone and a bad drought could legitimately cause starvation.
Trade would also now involve 50 separate currencies with 50 separate organizations managing their monetary policies, all without FDIC insurance, SBA loans, or Secret Service counterfeiting prosecution.
Without any federal Constitution, FBI, FHA, Title IX, Brown v. Board of Education, or RFRA, there would be much fewer checks and balances to prevent injustice. If your state legislature passes a law or removes a protection from its Constitution, that would be it. There would be no more First Amendment or Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment to cite or SCOTUS to appeal to.
Some of these things could be replaced on the state level, but there's no guarantee they would. Plus that would then have at least the same costs as we have now but with a bunch of redundant departments for every state instead of just one overall department.
Obviously the federal government has problems and I'd like it to be smaller, but that would be cure far worse than the disease. When the Confederacy tried to secede so they could keep slavery, Lincoln fought the Civil war not to destroy slavery, but to preserve the union because he saw that as the "paramount object". (Although personally, I think abolishing slavery is more important than any success as a country.)
The US would go from having the most powerful military on earth to a complete inability to fight anybody without a central government. Hopefully Canada wouldn't invade, but southern border states would have much less funding to stop illegal immigration.
Without a military, central government, or giant economy, the US's soft power would be gone as there's no longer a singular foreign policy or reason for other countries to really care. Along the same lines, the states would all be pitted against each other in any trade deal negotiations. There would no longer be any tariffs or regulatory motivation to buy something from America over buying it from Canada or China.
The Interstate System and rail systems would be greatly impeded. There would be no more consistent driver's licenses, speed limits, car safety or emissions standards, seat belt laws, or DUI laws. Just imagine trying to transport vegetables from California to New York as you now have to go through 10 international border crossings, all with totally different laws.
Medicare, social security, the ACA, the VA, FHA, CDC, NASA, NIH, and USDA would all be gone. A lot of people get help from those policies and agencies which they no longer would. In addition, without federal funding, food scarcity would become a real possibility. Currently the federal government spends a lot on subsidizing food production to ensure a stable food supply. Without that, the Midwest and Great Plains would first of all be a lot poorer, but also produce much less food. So food would be more expensive for everyone and a bad drought could legitimately cause starvation.
Trade would also now involve 50 separate currencies with 50 separate organizations managing their monetary policies, all without FDIC insurance, SBA loans, or Secret Service counterfeiting prosecution.
Without any federal Constitution, FBI, FHA, Title IX, Brown v. Board of Education, or RFRA, there would be much fewer checks and balances to prevent injustice. If your state legislature passes a law or removes a protection from its Constitution, that would be it. There would be no more First Amendment or Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment to cite or SCOTUS to appeal to.
Some of these things could be replaced on the state level, but there's no guarantee they would. Plus that would then have at least the same costs as we have now but with a bunch of redundant departments for every state instead of just one overall department.
Obviously the federal government has problems and I'd like it to be smaller, but that would be cure far worse than the disease. When the Confederacy tried to secede so they could keep slavery, Lincoln fought the Civil war not to destroy slavery, but to preserve the union because he saw that as the "paramount object". (Although personally, I think abolishing slavery is more important than any success as a country.)
Granted, the fed was much weaker - thus the current COTUS- BUT the Fed has exceeded its authority!
1) They could set up an organization like NATO -for common defense 2) Under "Seperate Countries" the Southern States could actually fully enforce illegal immigration!
Competition is always good!
The Interstate System and rail systems would be greatly impeded. There would be no more consistent driver's licenses, speed limits, car safety or emissions standards, seat belt laws, or DUI laws. Just imagine trying to transport vegetables from California to New York as you now have to go through 10 international border crossings, all with totally different laws.)[/QUOTE]
Some of those could continue - say for three years until the State/Commonwealth could take over. For some of the give-a-way programs- if people realize that the fed wont give them $$ for food, ect - methinks they will find a way to live!
States could do it on a smaller scale.
- IF a state/commonwealth does not want a Title IX, ect - that would be their business - If you dont like the policies of Texas - than move to Calif.....
Some of these things could be replaced on the state level, but there's no guarantee they would. Plus that would then have at least the same costs as we have now but with a bunch of redundant departments for every state instead of just one overall department.)[/QUOTE]
Obviously the federal government has problems and I'd like it to be smaller, but that would be cure far worse than the disease. When the Confederacy tried to secede so they could keep slavery, Lincoln fought the Civil war not to destroy slavery, but to preserve the union because he saw that as the "paramount object". (Although personally, I think abolishing slavery is more important than any success as a country.)[/QUOTE]
In response to the OP, the scenario of States becoming Sovereign Nations would give rise to complicated treaties and cooperative agreements. Supply chains would be significantly affected and prices on nearly everything would skyrocket. Individual States (Nations) would hold others hostage due to land locked situations. This would result in either agreed merger or war to annex territory for economic sustainability and survival. Some of these Nation/States would become Communist while others would become Fascist and be ruled by warmongers looking to expand (basically Little Putin's). Chaos would ensue and the "Pax Americana" would crumble into a new Dark Age.
The separate states idea is terrible on its face, even though such a process would almost certainly result in an EU-type organization, or several - might be impossible to have CA and TX choosing to be in the same one after the breakup.