h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, don't get me wrong...I think the idea of the UN telling the US what to do is a LOVELY idea.

The problem seems to be that the US sees itself as the only nation that is capable of effecting change in the world, and that is just not the case. After WWII, when the European theatre was devastated, the US was the only nation industrialized and advanced enough to take over for what had been dominant force in the world.

Unfotunately, that was 60 years ago. What the US has to realize is that Europe is no longer the wasteland of battlefields that it was after WWII, and let other countries help (or not, as the case may be). Perhaps if the UN had a little more backbone, they could control this colonizing tendency of the US. Instead of Iraq being a rogue nation, perhaps the US should be considered in that category.

I don't know if it is a question of the UN having backbone. Russia, France and China showed some backbone over Iraq when they disagreed with the US's sudden mysterious desire for war. The UN is only the voices that make it up. The institutions and the Secretary General are diplomats and followers not leaders. Perhaps if the UN raised its own taxes, or sold fishing rights or radio frequencies or space on the moon or something, it might be different. But all nations, not just the US, are too jealous for that to happen.


I still find it puzzling that in much of the world, the UN (security council in particular) is seen as not much more than an extension of US foreign policy, and yet in the US, there is opposition to the UN. It doesn't add up. Somebody, or everybody, is getting the wrong message.

The problem is, the motivations behind the resistance of those three nations to the war in Iraq were every bit as spurious as the US's motivations to conduct it.

You're right, Blatherskite, I should have been more clear. The Constitution no where specifically mentions the issue of secession. Neither does it ever claim the nation is indivisible. It does say that states cannot be divided without the consent of all parties involved- but there is never any mention of a doctrine that states have relinquished the right to leave a union freely entered into. It si fairly clear to me that if the original 13 states had been told going in that they were surrendering their rights to leave, most would have considered it tyranny and would never have ratified the Constitution in the first place.

You're right, Blatherskite, I should have been more clear. The Constitution no where specifically mentions the issue of secession. Neither does it ever claim the nation is indivisible. It does say that states cannot be divided without the consent of all parties involved- but there is never any mention of a doctrine that states have relinquished the right to leave a union freely entered into. It si fairly clear to me that if the original 13 states had been told going in that they were surrendering their rights to leave, most would have considered it tyranny and would never have ratified the Constitution in the first place.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The US pledge of allegiance -- I wonder how that indivisible is meant to apply?

I think the right for a state to leave the union is still there. It was in the 60's.
Texas has reguarly brought it up part in jest, partly to declare their states independance within the Republic. If all agreed on capital hill it could be done in theory. They are probably best situated to do it too. As long as Presidents come from there a need does not exist , in fact it is beneficial for Texas to stay in these current circumstances.

"The problem is, the motivations behind the resistance of those three nations to the war in Iraq were every bit as spurious as the US's motivations to conduct it."

Would you like to elaborate? Would this include Russia not wanting to take a WTO loan that the US insists it should? Would this include the French wanting to keep people like Mugabe happy, possibly so they can sell more arms? And the Chinese because they think they and/or North Korea will be next?

I think I'll start a new thread on this...

Bryce: The states knew they were subordinating their governments to that of the federal government. The issue was the very core of the federalist/anti-federalist debates following the drafting of the Constitution. Those states ratified the Constitution of their own free will, or joined the union and its Constitution at a later date. See this article for more info: A525278

abbi: The pledge is the product of 1950's McCarthyism. It doesn't have a legal basis.

I think that if Texas got serious about independence, they'd run headlong into the federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution covering secession, because I don't think it ever occurred to the founders.

Technically, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is delegated to the states in Amendment 10. That means the state could determine if they will leave the union. But I'm sure as soon as it was tried, it would spark a national debate, and a possible Constitutional amendment to address the oversight... should that side of the debate win.

As far as legal precedent is concerned, there were those states who tried secession once, and they got the worse end of a terrible war as a result.

Would a valid legal argument against secession be that it would violate all the rights and powers given in the constitution to the federal government? That would probably not be an intended consequence.

I've long thought the UK should have a written constitution, but I am beginning to wonder.

Abbi, the pledge of allegience is not part of the constitution. In fact it was not commonly recited until after the Civil War- at which point it became very important to emphasize that the Union WAS indivisible. The "under God " clause was added in the TWentieth Century, I believe.

Blatherskite, I agree that the states were subordinated to the federal government- but only in certain areas. That is why the Tenth Amendment was so important. It emphasized that the federal government is not supreme over everything, but only over those narrow areas delineated in the Constitution. Any hting else is reserved to the states or the people. The Tenth Ammendment is pretty much a dead letter now as federal power has expanded into every facet of our lives...

I do not think it existed before the 2oth century.

I do not understand what indivisible means in the context of the pledge.
Indivisable from God or the Republic or both?
I understand it is not a legal document so it is beside the point.
I know I am straying...I will look for the answer.

The pledge of allegiance always seems slightly sinister to me. I can understand, say, singing the national anthem, but pledging allegiance on a regular basis, eg everyday at school, sounds like a form of brainwashing akin to the Hitler Youth and the Scouts.

"indivisible" simply means that the nation cannot be divided as it was during the Civil War. This clause was in there long before "under God" was added. It was probably a response to the War between the States. And yes it is a little sinister. One of the groundbreaking issues on religious liberty in this country involved Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to recite the Pledge in schools, as they really feel that only God deserves that kind of allegience. In their view, reciting the pledge is a form of idolatry.

There is a battle now about it. Our state said you do not have too. It may have been decided by Fed law.

I believe the God part and the morning school tradition was added in the Mcarthy era. (I will not have time to look it up, leaving for a few days)

Thanks for the post.

"The pledge of allegiance always seems slightly sinister to me. I can understand, say, singing the national anthem, but pledging allegiance on a regular basis, eg everyday at school, sounds like a form of brainwashing akin to the Hitler Youth and the Scouts"

Does it actually make a difference to people, though? I remember when I was in the Cub Scouts we had to recite an oath to "God and to The Queen" and it's not made me (and, I don't doubt, any of the other people I went to Cub Scouts with) loyal to either.

Das Mouldy Sandwich, you think the Scouts practice brainwashing ? Are you talking about the Boy Scouts ?

"The problem seems to be that the US sees itself as the only nation that is capable of effecting change in the world, and that is just not the case. After WWII, when the European theatre was devastated, the US was the only nation industrialized and advanced enough to take over for what had been dominant force in the world."

"Unfotunately, that was 60 years ago. What the US has to realize is that Europe is no longer the wasteland of battlefields that it was after WWII, and let other countries help (or not, as the case may be). Perhaps if the UN had a little more backbone, they could control this colonizing tendency of the US. Instead of Iraq being a rogue nation, perhaps the US should be considered in that category."

THe problem is this--the US government sees that European countries aren't sapending nearly as much of their budgets on defence as the US is, so it assumes that they are isolationist and don't want to do anything unless directly threatend. Thus, Bush feels he has to do everything on his own. THe US spends more on defence than any other nation, so people in the US governemnt assume that we are the only nation that is going to ever do anything.

"You're right, Blatherskite, I should have been more clear. The Constitution no where specifically mentions the issue of secession. Neither does it ever claim the nation is indivisible. It does say that states cannot be divided without the consent of all parties involved- but there is never any mention of a doctrine that states have relinquished the right to leave a union freely entered into. It si fairly clear to me that if the original 13 states had been told going in that they were surrendering their rights to leave, most would have considered it tyranny and would never have ratified the Constitution in the first place."

I'd have to agree with you on that. I don't really see what in the constitution forbids successionism. Also, remember the Virginia and Kuntucky Resolutions--the founding fathers did seem to think that the states had rights to overpower the Federal government. However, I think that Jefferson would probably have supported the Union in the Civil War. He seemed to understand that slavery was morally wrong and that dividing the country would only make it weak.

The reason the US spends so much on defense is because, well, during WWII, Korea and to some extent, Viet Nam, the government discovered that the economy grew. A growing economy is good. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing in Iraq wasn't an attempt to revive a sagging economy through war.