An odd thought! Unitary Governor?

[Flabbergasted]

What if, say, my home state Oregon's, governor, Kulongowski, decided that he was the "Unitary Governor" and formed a legal basis around this idea: state rights ultimately usurp federal rights? If he had a sound legal defence he could in addition argue that Supreme Court rulings are negligable. In other words the arguement may be:, If, fearing the misuse of the office of higher, hieracrhical, powers Oregon state deems that they must, by constitutional integrity, rule in favor of their constituencies well-being (Emergency Power).

There wouldn't be much difference between what Bush is DOING, and what Kulongowski is trying to do.

The only question at this point would be: who has the means to keep the other "In Line."

[benburch]

1. What you are talking about is secession. nt

[Flabbergasted]

2. I realize that? I'm talking about the legal argument behind secession.

[Bucky]

3. Truth: behind legitimacy & sovreignty & popular consent lies force.

That's always been true. Every engine has, at its heart, a spark and a fire. The only question is, how many layers of steel and insulation do you want between the passengers and the pure fire that keeps their engine of state running? The Framers of the Constitution said they wanted loads of protection between citizens and the raw power and energy of executive government. Then two years later they added still more protections onto the power of the state with the Bill of Rights.

Governments are inherently dangerous to liberty*. You'll never build a crash proof vehicle or a tyranny proof government. Protecting liberty requires vigilence. Bush on the other hand asks you to fall asleep while he's driving. Fat chance, pretzel boy.


(*Of course the absense of government is even more dangerous to liberty, but that's another subject)

[Flabbergasted]

4. Great words! Could you explain this to me...?

"Then two years later they added still more protections onto the power of the state with the Bill of Rights."

[Bucky]

5. Constitution written in 1787; Bill of Rights written in 1789 (passed: '91)

The Constitution was written with the specific understanding that you needed a strong executive (the "engine" in my analogy) in order to keep the country safe and proserous. But it also was built with a Congress of the people to keep an eye on the executive branch and write rules to limit what it could do against the people.

Almost immediately after the architecture of our government was established, Framers like George Mason were clammoring for a Bill of Rights to specify what the executive and legislative branches couldn't do with respect to the rights of citizens. Washington and Madison were originally opposed to a Bill of Rights in 1787 because they thought that if you enumerate the rights the people do have, the government could claim that any unnamed rights were those that the people did not always have.

By 1789 Madison was turned around on this issue and favored a specific menu of what rights the people could never lose, and thus he wrote the Bill of Rights that he used to oppose. Today's debate on whether a "right to privacy" exists in the Bill of Rights is a continuation of that first debate on whether all the rights the people have are already covered by the B.o.Rts, or whether the people continue to maintain all rights--discovered and undiscovered--whether they are named outright in the Bill of Rights now.