The Montana Discussion

[StruckingFuggle]

'Cause I think it'd be interesting, and Martin outlawed it from the Heller v. DC case thread.

SO.

Montana threatens to secede. But what happens if they do? I mean, does it have any sort of significant impact anywhere in the world? Based on my last post from the previous thread, I don't think so:

Fun little fact. If Montana Seceded, they would be the 4th largest Nuclear power in the world.

Besides, even if they did, I don't think they'd... nah. I can see them being stupid enough to actually be willing to use them despite probably having most of the world, at least several major nuclear powers and armed powers such as the US and Europe glaring at their little dumbfuck republic.

Heh. WE might not even have to nuke them in retaliation ... "Hey, Iran, North Korea, China, you want to have some fun knocking the United States around with nukes? Here, go ahead and fire at Montana, spare us the our using our missiles."

And if they didn't have the stupid-insane-stones to make use of the nukes, they'd be pretty quickly routed. Economically, if not militarily. As one of the most sparsely populated states in the union, and being MONTANA, what do they have that we would need, and couldn't take from them? What do they need, that we have, and they could take? Seriously, would it hurt anyone except Montana to make them an international trade pariah 'rogue nation'?

It might be a fun little experiment!

And then, if things turned ugly, seriously - it's just Montana. Write out the nukes and you have a curb-stomping-boy (kinda like a whipping boy, except more brutal) for the Coalition to feel all big over beating down after being kinda messed up from Iraq.

The whole thing seems patently absurd, and I'm torn between "I can't believe they're serious" and "... actually, I can see them being dumb enough to actually be serious, but I find it a hard threat to appreciate".

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything that'd make it turn out well for them.


They just seem like a bunch of whining prats throwing a fit in the grocery store checkout aisle.

So? What do y'all think?

[Arres]

So, was there a history to this conceptually, or was it spawned from an offhand comment? Like, is someone in Montana ACTUALLY proposing secession?

[ampersand]

I would think Montana, along with Idaho and Wyoming, would rather ask to join Canada than declare themselves an independant nation.

[StruckingFuggle]

Well, some politicians seem to be serious about it, then Eigher was bringing it up as a point worth considering that needed 'more coverage' in the news regarding the case, and it went from there.

And amp, considering what would spawn this absurd little adventure in one-sided beatdowns civil war, I hardly doubt they'd want to join up with Canada.

[adciv]

According to an article in the June 2008 edition of Reason Magazine, days prior to the D.C. v. Heller case being heard by the court, Montana politicians presented a joint resolution pointing out that when the federal government approved Montana's state constitution, it included a clause which grants "any person" the right to bear arms. The federal government recognized that clause as consistent in meaning with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I am going to quote the Montana State Constitution

Sec. 12. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of
his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil
power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in
question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to
permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/montana.txt
What the politicians were saying is that if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way, then they would have been effectively overriding the Montana State Constitution in direct contradiction of how it was interpreted when Montana joined the Union.

However, if this behavior is any indication of the dedication of the politicians of Montana to maintaining the peace and integrity of our nation, perhaps we would be better off without their participation in the U.S. political process. In today's political climate, we need a willingness on the part of our politicians to discuss the issues, not an adamant refusal to participate.

So, if I were to bring up the issue of baring the ability for non-white males to vote, would you 'discuss this' or walk away and say 'over my dead body'?

[StruckingFuggle]

Yeah, I'd be willing to discuss it, first. Now, I'd have a rather firm position on th matter, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to discuss with you why you're wrong, first...

Also, then wouldn't barring felons and the insane from owning weapons, same as barring the ownership of fully automatic weapons and the like also have ALREADY resulted in a similar broach of agreement, many times previous?

Anyway, two things:

One:

What the politicians were saying is that if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way, then they would have been effectively overriding the Montana State Constitution in direct contradiction of how it was interpreted when Montana joined the Union.

And where it is then written that that gives Montana the capacity and grounds to leave the Union?

Two: really, I'd more wanted to discuss what sort of ramifications for all involved there would be IF they left, rather than the grounds for their leaving, but ... whatever.

[adciv]

Also, then wouldn't barring felons and the insane from owning weapons, same as barring the ownership of fully automatic weapons and the like also have ALREADY resulted in a similar broach of agreement, many times previous?

It has been ruled that Felons and the mentally insane may have the right to vote, among other things, taken away from them. I'm just going to point that to you and use it as the exact same reason why it may be removed from people.

And where it is then written that that gives Montana the capacity and grounds to leave the Union?

Congress had to approve the State Constitution for them to be admitted to the Union. If they were to try to somehow overrule the state constitution or remove any portion of that, wouldn't that be the same as removing one of the requirements for admission? Think of it as a breach of contract.

Two: really, I'd more wanted to discuss what sort of ramifications for all involved there would be IF they left, rather than the grounds for their leaving, but ... whatever.

They'd have physical access to the Nukes, but not the launch codes. I think if they left on this issue, some other states might try to join them. The South Shall Rise Again! I don't think they would try to join Canada, given that Canada has gun laws that are about as stupid as DCs, and judging by the way they've voted for the past 80+ years. (Side note, look at the 1924 election map)
http://www.panda.com/canadaguns/#regulations

Any use of a firearm against a human, even in self-defense, is likely to be prosecuted as a crime in Canada. For that matter, use of any weapon against a human is likely to be a crime.

[BtEO]

What the politicians were saying is that if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way, then they would have been effectively overriding the Montana State Constitution in direct contradiction of how it was interpreted when Montana joined the Union.

That doesn't seem totally correct in my understanding. If SCOTUS had ruled the other way the 2^nd amendment would have been judged to mean that the personal right to keep and bear arms only applies within the framework of a state militia, allowing states (and DC) to regulate as they see fit outside of that context; it does not follow that a state constitution cannot grant an identical personal right for self-defence purposes within that state without being in conflict with the US constitution — those two ideas can co-exist perfectly fine. The US constitution would not be overriding Montana's state constitution as it is only saying what rights exist, it makes no statements saying that lower courts cannot grant further rights on a state-by-state level.

[ampersand]

I'm not saying that they would join Canada if "offered", I'm just saying the likelihood/seriousness of talk about succession is rather low.

[StruckingFuggle]

It's funny, is what it is, and kind of quaint.

Mm, I like that word, quaint.

/me sips on a latte

And at the same time, it's also troublesome and depressing, how quiet it seems on the Montana streets and news centers. The people of Montana should be offended by and disgusted in their unilateral, dictatorial government leadership, who seem would sooner decide and settle the issue on their own, rather than turn it to a vote of Montanans. Even if it were a mostly a foregone conclusion, it's an important consideration.

No one (I don't think?) was elected on the platform of / discussing the situation of secession, and even if they were, it's the sort of thing that should be settled by all Montanans, not just a couple who happen to hold office.


What do they hope to actually accomplish beyond suck and fail, anyway? Die for a principle? A noble gesture, if kind of silly because I doubt much of anyone would by convinced by it, it'd be preaching to a small choir while looking like a bunch of prattish children throwing a hissy fit to the rest of the world, and would engender probably more antipathy, rather than sympathy ... at the cost, likely, of troubling the citizens of Crazyistan, nee' Montana.

Seriously. Am I missing something that makes this a viable notion, or is it as doomed to failure as it really seems?

[Eihger]

It's funny What do they hope to actually accomplish beyond suck and fail, anyway? Die for a principle? A noble gesture, if kind of silly because I doubt much of anyone would by convinced by it, it'd be preaching to a small choir while looking like a bunch of prattish children throwing a hissy fit to the rest of the world, and would engender probably more antipathy, rather than sympathy ... at the cost, likely, of troubling the citizens of Crazyistan, nee' Montana.

Seriously. Am I missing something that makes this a viable notion, or is it as doomed to failure as it really seems?

The Irony is astounding. That sounds like the founding of the United States, but then again any revolt for independence can be seen that way.

[StruckingFuggle]

Yeah. And then, most revolutions stupid and/or end badly, and tend to be more important, and less puffed up, and generally the revolutionaries will either stand a chance, or at least move someone. This has none of the good stuff and most of the bad, including it smacks of having no plan and being if not against the will of the people, then at least without their consent.

Besides, usually, revolutions happen over something that happens to the revolters, here that's kind of impossible to be the case.

Need I go on?


And you're still avoiding the question of if this has any chance whatsoever or not.


</seriousness> Man, those must be some rather bitter people ...

[Eihger]

Montana is very gun crazy, its like a way of life. To say the supreme court can make gun banning legal Montana sees that as the south saw the outlawing of slavary. Granted it wont impact their livelyhoods that much, but thats how they view it. I'm not going to defend their sanity, but I will say this ( It might have some implications) Montana has the most birth defects in the United States from nuclear fallout from bomb testing in Nevada. COULD explain a few things

[adciv]

That doesn't seem totally correct in my understanding. If SCOTUS had ruled the other way the 2^nd amendment would have been judged to mean that the personal right to keep and bear arms only applies within the framework of a state militia, allowing states (and DC) to regulate as they see fit outside of that context; it does not follow that a state constitution cannot grant an identical personal right for self-defence purposes within that state without being in conflict with the US constitution — those two ideas can co-exist perfectly fine. The US constitution would not be overriding Montana's state constitution as it is only saying what rights exist, it makes no statements saying that lower courts cannot grant further rights on a state-by-state level.

According to an article in the June 2008 edition of Reason Magazine, days prior to the D.C. v. Heller case being heard by the court, Montana politicians presented a joint resolution pointing out that when the federal government approved Montana's state constitution, it included a clause which grants "any person" the right to bear arms. The federal government recognized that clause as consistent in meaning with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

This meaning is in-line with what the Supreme Court in DC v. Heller ruled. If you go with the dissent where they claim that it only applies to the militia, then you have you have a contradiction.

[bagheadinc]

Well then, this thread has nothing to do with Hannah Montana.