Joe Vogler and the Alaska Independence Party

[Publius]

Then apparently, Volger didn't quite grasp the "and" part. So does this mean the 14th Amendment was written with the intent for state citizens to protest their national citizenship? After all, the very next sentence reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Volger's a little nuts, IMO. Before the 14th Amendment, though, the dominant idea was that people were citizens of their state first and citizens of the U.S. as a consequence of their state citizenship. So, for example, if a state did not consider slaves to be citizens of that state, they would therefore not be citizens of the U.S. either. The original privileges and immunities clause (in Art IV Sec 2) says "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The 14th Amendment kept the idea of dual (state and U.S.) citizenship, but flipped it. Now U.S. citizenship is explicitly defined, and state citizenship flows from that. Among right-wing and libertarian fringe types, the "sovereign citizen" movement holds that either the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, or that 14th Amendment citizenship is optional, and you can choose instead to be a pre-14th Amendment "sovereign citizen" of your state rather than the United States.

[DubiousComforts]

Volger's a little nuts, IMO. Before the 14th Amendment, though, the dominant idea was that people were citizens of their state first and citizens of the U.S. as a consequence of their state citizenship. So, for example, if a state did not consider slaves to be citizens of that state, they would therefore not be citizens of the U.S. either. The original privileges and immunities clause (in Art IV Sec 2) says "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The 14th Amendment kept the idea of dual (state and U.S.) citizenship, but flipped it. Now U.S. citizenship is explicitly defined, and state citizenship flows from that. Among right-wing and libertarian fringe types, the "sovereign citizen" movement holds that either the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, or that 14th Amendment citizenship is optional, and you can choose instead to be a pre-14th Amendment "sovereign citizen" of your state rather than the United States. We agree on Volger. Is there really any U.S. citizen that wouldn't prefer less government interference, other than possibly those already in the U.S. government? Volger sounds like just another guy making the case to do whatever he feels like, and to hell with everyone else that shares the same country.

[Philly_SWAT]

There was a movement in Texas a few years ago that wanted Texas to secede from the US. They said something about the "paperwork" ( dont remember if it was a treaty, legislative thing, or what) that made Texas a state was never ratified, or some such improper thing, and that in fact Texas was not a legal state currently.

[DubiousComforts]

There was a movement in Texas a few years ago that wanted Texas to secede from the US. They said something about the "paperwork" ( dont remember if it was a treaty, legislative thing, or what) that made Texas a state was never ratified, or some such improper thing, and that in fact Texas was not a legal state currently. There is a similar independence movement in Puerto Rico. Even Hawaii isn't very happy being a state.

[Mike70]

Very interesting, I didn't know about that. I'm sure there are people outside of Newfoundland who wish the Newfies still belonged to the UK too. i think you could probably file most canadians in that group. newfoundland is little more than the butt of a huge amount of jokes to most canadians. whenever the subject comes up when we are around my wife's family (she is from ontario) the words lousy, bitching, newfies usually get used in the same sentence. a lot of people in canada probably wish that the UK would take newfoundland back or that it would sink into the north atl. anyhoo, at one time newfoundland was a dominion within the british empire on equal standing with canada, australia, new zealand, etc. the first vote had 3 options: a dominion within the empire, become part of canada, stay under direct rule from london through a commission (newfoundland's dominion status had been revoked in 1934) . none of these options got a clear majority 44% chose to remain a dominion, 41% to become part of canada, 15% for the commission . in the next runoff the third option was dropped and rumours began to fly that chicanery was afoot among the people favoring joining canada. next election 51% for canada, 49% for the UK and there's been boohooing ever since. i can understand some of it. one minute you are part of the UK. the next minute you are a province of a country where most of the people could give a shit less about you and wish you simply either a. shut up b. go away c. do both..

[Purge]

Sarah Palin was little more than eye candy to woo Conservative males. Speaking as one, it didn't work for me. I'm all for Conservative politics, but successionism is treason, as far as I'm concerned.

[AcesandEights]

successionism is treason, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, I'd be more likely to support of a revolution than secession. Secessionists...pfeh

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm all for Conservative politics, but successionism is treason, as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, I'd be more likely to support of a revolution than secession. Secessionists...pfeh I understand your patriotic points here, but so much of this country is supposedly based on "what the founding fathers wanted". The founding fathers did not want a huge, overbearing federal government dictating an overwhelming number of dictates to the individual States. It was supposed to be a bunch of independent states binded together through a federal system, not held around the neck by a federal system. Our country is not one word....like Spain, France, Russia, etc. it is "The United States of America". The new world continents being named "America", and the individual States that banded together were "the united states of". So it seems logical to me that individual states ought to be able of the will of its citizens to separate from the United States if that is their wish. I am not suggesting that I think it would be a good idea for any state to do so, but I dont know of any moral or legal justification for not allowing it.

[Mike70]

I am not suggesting that I think it would be a good idea for any state to do so, but I dont know of any moral or legal justification for not allowing it. i think that depends on whether you see the constitution as a binding and permanent contract between the state and the federal govt. if it is then there really is no basis for secession. i am not against allowing states to secede from the union but i don't think it should merely be at the whim of the state. yes, i consider ohio to be my country and to me it is more important that the US but i also realize that ohio is part of something much bigger and that as americans we all should have a share in a such a decision. but, i am not a constitutional law expert. my education is as an ancient historian, so all that i've just said is nothing more than my opinion on the matter. now, i look off into the distance and await publius' return to the thread.