libertango: (Default)
The story of Michaele and Tareq Salahi of Virginia, the couple who crashed the state dinner between President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, continues to unwind.

Let's get things straight here: I'm very sceptical this is the first time this has happened at a state dinner. In fact, my bet is such crashers have been at many such events, probably at least one per Administration. Rather, in the age of Facebook, this is the first time such crashers have posted pictures of their deed online. Not unlike 9/11, this should be a true surprise only if you're ignorant, naive, or both.

All that aside, though, more than anything the whole fuss reminds me of a long quote by Leopold Kohr in The Breakdown of Nations. It's spot on, especially so today:

A citizen of the Principality of Liechtenstein, whose population numbers less than fourteen thousand, (in 1957 when Kohr was writing) desirous to see His Serene Highness the Prince and Sovereign, Bearer of many exalted orders and Defender of many exalted things, can do so by ringing the bell at his castle gate. However serene His Highness may be, he is never an inaccessible stranger. A citizen of the massive American republic, on the other hand, encounters untold obstacles in a similar enterprise. Trying to see his fellow citizen President, whose function is to be his servant, not his master, he may be sent to an insane asylum for observation or, if found sane, to a court on charges of disorderly conduct. Both happened in 1950... You will say that in a large power such as the United States informal relationships such as exist between government and citizen in small countries are technically unfeasible. This is quite true. But this is exactly it. Democracy in its full meaning is impossible in a large state which, as Aristotle already observed, is 'almost incapable of constitutional government'. (pg. 99-100)
libertango: (Default)
From a recent post to Slate.




"No one seriously believes today that states have the right to secede."

Hmm... I suppose that makes me "no one", or that my beliefs are frivolous. :)

It depends, I suppose, on what one means by "secede". If by that one means a unilateral withdrawal by a state (or states) from the Union, yes, that question is settled.

Three questions, though, are not:

* Is it permissible for Congress and a state to mutually agree that a state may leave the Union?

* Is it possible for Congress to unilaterally boot a state out?

* And, a question where I haven't done enough research, but I mention it: It is my understanding that the three states that joined the Union as independent nations -- Vermont, Texas, and California -- all have language in their respective treaties that allow a withdrawal based on mutual state-Federal consent. If such treaty language exists, is it legal?

This all isn't as frivolous as one might be tempted to think. Leopold Kohr, in his book The Breakdown of Nations, suggests that the reason the USA has been able to adhere as well as it has is due to the fact that no one state has the power to overwhelm the combined force of the other states. He uses Europe as a counter-example, where the Great Powers have long had the ability to stomp over smaller countries. Arguably, moves toward European union were advanced by the Cold War, because the old Great Powers were all equally inferior in power to the Superpowers.

The speculation to put on the table, then: Is it possible for any state to gain enough power to be a viable threat to the others? I suggest that Texas and California are possibilities, in the 50-75 year time frame. And if my belief about mutually agreed dissolution of the Union above is correct for those two states...

Profile

libertango: (Default)
Hal

March 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516 17 1819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 5th, 2026 12:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios