Secession, Part II

Heard Mike Church say on the radio today, concerning Louisiana's beef with the Feds over the oil spill cleanup and prevention efforts... "If at first you don't secede... try, try again." I'm sure Jindal is about at that point right now.

However, as I said, Jambo and I talked about the legality of secession, historically and in a contemporary sense, and have concluded that it is NOT a legal option, even if the people of a particular State or States vote in referendum to remove themselves from the Union (as the 11 Southern States did in 1861-1862).

In 1869, the SCotUS heard the case of Texas v White and decided that the only manner in which a State may remove itself from the Union is by revolution or by the consent of all the States. Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a member of Lincoln's Cabinet) gave the majority opinion, and summed it up nicely. (A bit long, but worth the read, I think)

"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that "the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence," and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. "

I'm of the opinion that Justice Chase was correct. An indissoluble Union, made more Perfect by the Constitution, means removal from the Union is beyond any State to decide, and can only be decided by ALL the States (presumably gathered in Convention) or by successful revolution (which the Civil War was not).

Secession...

Jambo and I had a good talk last night about secession from the United States... its legality and historical precedence. Mostly, we were referring to the States breaking with the Union beginning in 1861, but this morning, I'm thinking its more topical than either of us thought.

They have now found oil and tar balls in Lake Pontchartrain, LA (how it got there, I'm not 100% sure... but its there). To prevent further oil contamination of the estuaries and bayous of the State, Louisiana has asked that they be allowed to build rock barriers that would act as artificial reefs to catch and contain the oil before it has a chance to move inland. Well, the Feds have denied that request (specifically, the Army Corps of Engineers did), saying that the barriers were more harmful to the environment than the oil they'd be stopping.

Governor Jindal seems to have flipped out. In an article I read, the ACoE gives some lame excuses... but Jindal jumps in and blames the entire fiasco on the Fed's inept handling of useless regulation and micromanagement of the clean up. If ever there was a man ready to say the word "secede" it was Bobby Jindal... he keeps repeating the phrase "Get out of our way!" and it is beginning to show in the national polls, I think, because Obama's "handling" of the crisis is costing him opinion points left and right.

In all seriousness, I think this oil spill crisis is going to throw Bobby into the 2012 fray, whether he wants it or not. Who else is facing off, nose-to-nose, with Obama and the Feds the way Jindal is? Jindal isn't pointing fingers at BP and whining and crying... he's SCREAMING to be allowed to fix the problems as they come up the best way his State can, and with each idea and proposal, he is thwarted by the Federal bureaucracy. The man is looking like a frigging GENIUS, if for no other reason than he is pointing out that the Federal Government is NOT THE CURE-ALL Obama promised it would be.

If the Feds can't determine the fastest, most expedient manner in which to clean up this oil (or at least keep it off of our most fragile shores), and WON'T allow the States effected to do it for themselves, how can he HOPE to sell his agenda for such vastly more complicated schemes like "health care" or revamping the American economy?

What a joke...

God, my wife is cute...

Liz starts her new, "big girl" job today, and as she left the house this morning I could tell she was very nervous. Clothing issues, trouble finding things, rush, rush, rush... man, that women is cute when she wants to be.

After six years of secretary work for a parish where the entire faith community is over 60, she is finally going to work in a place where she will be side-by-side with people her own age, and will get a 40-hour a week paycheck, benefits, vacation time, et al.

Hang in there, Elizabeth... have some fun and make some friends, don't worry about the stuff you have no control over. They will all sort themselves out, I promise.

EXACTLY what I was referring to...

I found this article today, and I wanted to use it to show exactly what I was getting through my part in the very convoluted and confused thread of last week.

Obviously, any weapons or explosives or material that could be used to manufacture such are still restricted and won't be allowed in to Gaza, but the Israelis have now decided that materials such as steel, concrete, rebar, roofing and other such construction materials will be allowed into Gaza with no restrictions other than the PA will be held directly responsible for how those materials are employed within Gaza. This means that if the material is used for military or terror purposes (bunkers, tunnels, weapons manufacturing facilities), the Israelis will use the material as evidence of Hamas non-compliance with established PA agreements, and further "blockade" restrictions will go into effect... with the added "bonus" of possibly drawing military action from the IDF.

If the material is utilized and applied in approved PA construction projects, then there is no further complications. If the material is used against Israel... they face the prospect of further sanctions and military action. The onus is completely on Hamas to act in the best interests of the people they represent in the PA... NOT in the best interests of the people, nations or organizations that are supporting them in their efforts against Israel. There are no means by which anyone can criticize the Israelis for such a policy... at least in my opinion.

I'm okay with what you said...

Iran is a threat, no question there. I'd even go so far as to say that there is no country on earth that should be denied a nuclear weapon MORE than Iran... as long as we aren't dismissing or negating the threat that places like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, et al, also pose.

I'd say that there is a difference in the kind of threat posed. China is a real strategic threat to US interests, where I think Iran is a real (and very direct) threat to our immediate national security and regional peace and stability. Iran is the national embodiment of the threats posed by Hamas and Hezbullah, with the added capacity to develop, build and deliver nuclear weapons. I'll keep Iran on top of my list, but (were I PotUS) I'd have a whole wing of the State Department watching China 24/7.

Heat in the East...

Yep, its HOT here in NEPA this week. Highs in the upper 90s all week, no rain forecast, and the evenings only cooling to the upper 70s. Some places in PA might even break 100 by Wednesday.

So, what do I see in the local headlines this morning? Yep... global warming.

In the spring of 1778, in response to the defeat of Gen. Johnny Burgoyne at Saratoga the year before, the British had called for Loyalist and pro-British Indian forces to raid the western frontiers of the Mid Atlantic region. On July 3rd of that year, some of these forces attacked settlers and Patriots in the Wyoming Valley (very near where I live right now). By the end of the day, 300 Patriots (including women and children) were dead. The raid did little to further the Loyalist cause, but went a long way to ensure that the frontier of Pennsylvania was firmly and forever more Patriot in its views.

I bring this up because there are several contemporary accounts of the battle that still exist today. These all record the temperature to be higher than 95 degrees (mainly in accounts of how important the removal and burial of the dead was), which I feel shows that the heat we feel today is no different than that felt 232 years earlier by people living in the same county.

Furthermore, in the summer of 1816, in the very same Wyoming Valley of NEPA, there are documented sources stating that the Susquahanna River had enough ice on its surface to interfere with ferry-boat traffic... and that was in the months of July and August. Due to frost and freezing rain, crops failed across this half of the state, and helped to cement into the memory of the population the "Year without a Summer".

If, 200 years ago, the climate had that much of a variable mean temperature, why would ANYONE think that today would be any different? Why must everything be attributed to something society has done WRONG? I would have thought that so much of the Al Gore-inspired hysteria would have washed away with his tears and falling popularity... but it seems that there are still "Chicken Littles" out there, in spite of the evidence.

How sad is that?

Upon further reflection of the Chinese threat ...

... I realized I'm even more right then I first thought.

Why does the fact that Jambo feels China is a greater threat than Iran mean that China must "attack" the US to have that threat realized?

First off, he no longer believes that. Second, I didn't say the threat must be "realized" to be real, but in Iran's case it both realized and real. Iran's pursuit, the pursuit itself mind you, of nuclear weapons (let alone their acquirement) is a realized threat. I'll get to that more in a moment.

China supplies weapons and materials to such nations as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Myanmar, and gave $28 million in aid and material to Hamas in Gaza just last year (source HERE). China's "economic" goals come in direct conflict with those of the US on an almost daily basis, and their policies and agendas are as antithetical to our own as we could hope to see now that the USSR is no more.

This is all true. But the above also aptly describes, in part or in whole, many other nations: Russia, Saudi Arabia (& I dare say members of the Royal House of Saud have given far more than $28 million to Hamas), Pakistan and a litany of other countries. All of whom are not direct or declared "enemies" of the US, but whose national self interests conflict with our own. And each of them, Russia in particular, deserve their place on any "threat list." So don't mistake my placing Iran ahead of China to mean China need not be on the list. And I would hasten to add that unlike the Soviets (whom did until the day of their demise), China is not still extending a "Bamboo Curtain" over additional satellite Eastern European, or Pacific nations, one after another - they're building factories more than empire.

Just having China operate in a "busniess-as-usual" manner is a threat to US security and national interests... yet we should dismiss that threat as that much LESS than Iran's?

Yes, but not "dismiss", just basic, sound reasoning. China operates daily, on various levels, in a way that is in direct conflict to our national interests, this is true. They clearly want to supplant America as "the" superpower in the world. However, whereas China, in this endeavour, operates against US interests, Iran operates directly against US national security. Put plainly, is there any policy, agenda or course that China is currently plotting that could result in their raising the temperature of a US allies' capital city to about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit? Have they threatened to "deal us a crippling blow" in their pursuit of a nuclear weapon (I know they already have the bomb, I'm making a point)? Is their any possibility that Chinese government policy will include the possibility of smuggling a nuclear device into the hands of Islamic radicals, with the intent of destroying a major US city? Bare in mind this city is within the nation that is their largest consumer. Is the world scrambling to figure out how to prevent China from "having the bomb?" Has the Chinese premier, in any way, approached the level of insane rhetoric, ghastly promises of wiping another nation off the map, or behaved in a manner anything approaching the recklessness of the Iranian regime? If we are talking about the upcoming "big threat", say in the next 5 months to 5 years, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon is clearly the largest threat out there, in my estimation. The strategic chess game we are now engaged in with China is just that. It is not, however, a race to prevent them from causing a second holocaust or igniting a US city via their terrorist proxies. Again, this is not to say Chinese interests do not represent any threat to US interests. Rather it is to say their threat assessment is certainly less than Iran's.

Now you might say that China is the patron of North Korea, and North Korea has threatened to wipe Seoul off the map - clearly a US ally. This is true. But the first nation to strike North Korea, were they on count down to launching that nuke, would be China in my analysis.Being the patron of North Korea means they have sway with them. They can yank the reigns on that Kim Jong's head hard enough to make his neck snap, and because China does not want a nuclear Japan, nor to see the US in a military build up in their neck of the woods (in addition to the 40k or so troops already along the parallel) it is likely they will act as the governor on the North Korean nuke throttle. Does Iran have such a patron that can pull the reigns back on Ahmedadenajad and the ruling council's nuclear ambitions, or anything lese? None that I know of. You can say Israel will hit Iran if it becomes necessary. Fine. But you must concede that such a strike could set the Middle East on fire - Jihad's everywhere will come even more unhinged, and those on the fence will almost certainly take up arms with the fanatics. Hezbollah will undoubtedly respond, reigniting the Golan heights region and renew the reason for Israel to reestablish a presence in areas it recently withdrew from. The whole thing is a tinderbox. On the other hand, were China to step on Kim Jong's face, no one would bat an eye.

(*and just a side bar, this does not mean I think Israel should not strike if it becomes necessary. "Upsetting" an enemy bent on your destruction doesn't, nor should it, factor into neutralizing them. I was simply illustrating that there are no good choices with the Iranian problem, only varying levels of bad ones)

Honestly, I see the threat you're describing in China, but to rank it even close to Iran's, I just don't get that. Ahmedadenajad has promised to eviscerate Israel. They have shown the ability to apply an iron hand against domestic subversives. They directly fund Hezbollah. They are proceeding with a ramped up nuclear weapons program and Russia is laying down cover for them in the UN Security council to make sure that the US and or Israel will have to act unilaterally in order to act militarily. The entire thing is a powder keg, and Iran continues to strike a match head against the wall ... it just hasn't lit yet. Are we anywhere approaching such a disastrous scenario with the Chinese? Clinton described China as "Strategic Partners." Bush altered that description by offering his own as president: "Strategic Competitors." Partner, competitor, tomato, tomOto, the point is the conflict with our national interests that China represents has almost no possibility of igniting a war with the US or her allies on the horizon - the same can not be said of Iran. Bottom line, China by and large represents a "potential" national security threat, "what if this happens" or "what if they do that" are the terms in which the bulk of the Chinese threat is discussed. Whereas Iran's threat exists not in what it "might" do, but what it is doing.

Now, all that being said what history shows us is that we are ALL probably wrong. And here's the reason. The "next big thing" usually is a surprise, an unexpected event. Arch Duke Ferdinand; Pearl Harbor; North Korea's invasion; North Vietnam's invasion; the Cuban problem (from the Bay of Pigs unexpected failure to the missile crisis); the Berlin wall falling - all USSR related, but under different scenarios; Saddam's invasion of Kuwait; Milosevic's sudden and brutal campaign of genocide; and of course, 9/11. Each were shocking events that galvanized this country into plotting a new national security course, and none were of the "expected" nature.

So my dark horse, my candidate for being the unexpected upper cut to our national security, is Pakistan. It is almost certain that Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are held up in the Punjab mountainous region on the Afghani border. It's a real Mad Max Thunderdome bad land. Pakistan has suffered 2 major terrorist attacks in just the last month, directed at holy sites. The Pakistani government is precariously holding on to peace. On the one hand there is a significant percentage of the population that is sensitive to the terrorist rationale and fundamentalism. On the other there is an equally large part (if not bigger, just unorganized) of the Pakistan population that sees good relations with the West as good business. They're more concerned with inflation blowing up, not IED's. The government is trying to be seen as not "too" Western friendly, but also tough on terrorism. It's a tough sell being made even tougher by these recent attacks. The latter portion of the population I described is calling for a serious government crack down on the Punjab region in the wake of these attacks. And it's not happening. This means a disenfranchisement, or flat loss of faith in their government's ability to protect them. It could lead to anything from a spilt electorate allowing a fundamentalist Party to squeak by, all the way to a civil war - the Pakistani government facing their own version of Iraq circa 2006. A fundamentalist coup or election could push India to war, for they would see a fundamentalist nuclear Pakistan as unacceptable. Or it could mean Iran would get their patron in terms of weaponry. In either event Pakistan could prove to be the real disaster if a way to sterilize that bad land region on the border with Afghanistan is not found.

At any rate, just my thoughts. I'm off to watch "The Tudors", then get some much needed sleep. It's not as compelling as Spartacus: Blood and Sand, not as good. But it is good enough to get you to the next episode and available for instant streaming on Netflix. And Catholics would find it particularly "interesting", I think. As I said in my texts the Cardinals ran Europe (that is, up until Luther's prose and Henry VIII's lust altered that). I'll tell you one line that made me laugh out loud. Henry VIII tells Thomas More (by the way, is everyone important during this era named "Thomas" or what?) that he is to be made a knight. More responds with genuine surprise saying, "I fear your majesty has more faith in my abilities than I deserve." To which Henry responds, "Don't be too modest Thomas, you're not a saint." Funny obviously because 400 years later, in 1935, More literally does become a Saint via Pope Pius - an act directly attributable to Henry's blade. They had to know that line would get a big grin out of Catholics and historians (even psudeo historian Mormons, hehe).