They include not only brief explanations of the Revolutionary and Constititutional status of the states, but includes these interesting and fair points:
8. Hawai’i, an independent and sovereign kingdom prior to annexation by the Federal Government never legally or with consent conceded her sovereignty.9. Hawai’i must be allowed to vote on the issue of statehood or independence; this vote should include only native-born citizens of Hawai’i, not military troops and other temporary residents who were included in the last ratification vote.
10. Alaska also must be allowed a free and open plebiscite on the issue of statehood or independence, this vote should include only native-born Alaskan citizens, not military troops and other temporary residents as who were included in the last ratification vote.
11. Puerto Rico must be allowed a free and open vote on the issue of commonwealth, statehood or independence. This vote should consist only of native-born citizens who are current residents of Puerto Rico.
Twelve points in all. You can read the whole thing here.
Posts
Can we call it something besides "states' rights"?
ReplyDeleteAs an anti-statist, I don't like to acknowledge that states have anything like "rights". Subjects of states have rights, not states.
Secondly, the expression "states' rights" has become associated with some pretty dodgy viewpoints, eg segregationism, and it is hard enough to get a fair hearing on the decentralization argument viewpoint without the baggage that comes with the term.
Thirdly, I am pretty sure you see decentralization as a step toward greater freedom as I do, but I am equally sure that a lot of states' rights enthusiasts are keen to have their states regulate and oppress their people even more than they have been allowed to up until now. It's not really about the notion that states can do anything they want to do; it's about decentralization of power.
Perhaps "Secession Blogs" would have been better, but any manner of framing the decentralization of power will lead to the same unfortunate associations.
ReplyDeleteI signed on because,
a) I wholeheartedly endorse the Declaration;
b) The purpose is ecumenical. Yes, there may be petty tyrants who endorse states' rights. So? There are also libertarians who wouldn't go as far as I would go, and others who would go farther than I. But we are all on the same side when it comes to slaying the federal Leviathan. If, after it's dead, former allies part ways, so be it.
Better to make allies rather than enemies of other decentralists.