The question of statehood in the USA

Once again I have decided to dedicate a post to an in-depth reply to a comment.  This time it relates to my recent post about the definition of a state.  When writing this blog I always try to be factually correct, but I may make mistakes from time to time, and readers are welcome to point out any faults.

I am replying to someone called Luke, who appears to be an American citizen.  The original comments are shown in blue, and I reply mainly in black text.
.

A State of the United States can secede by a simple majority vote of its State legislator.

I wasn't aware of this.  What is your evidence for this?  Is it written into the Constitution of the USA?

That hasn't happened since our Civil War, but many elected representatives of different States have discussed it openly and even made it an issue in their campaigns just recently. No effort to secede from the United States since the Civil War has been successful, mainly because it has never been popular enough to even come to a vote. 

I do not know whether or not any states have discussed leaving the Union since 1865, but I do know that the efforts of eleven states to secede in 1861 were unsuccessful because the federal government of the USA brought them back into the Union through various acts of violence and starvation.

It would be financial suicide for a State to secede from the United States. Only New York, California, and Texas might be able to survive a cut off from the federal system. Our communal taxation system makes it almost impossible for a State to succeed and be financially successful, without that federal financial help.

Again, what is your evidence for this?  I expect that some people in 1776 thought that the British colonies in North America would not be able to survive outside of the British Empire.  Maybe some people in 1966 felt that Bechuanaland would not be able to flourish outside of the British Empire.

Then their is the question of what happens to the federally guarded rights of an American citizen living in a State that secedes.

Presumably they would be replaced by rights guarded by the legislation of that particular state.

When some States seceded from the United States before our Civil War, there was no federal right that made slavery illegal, protected blacks, or even made blacks citizens.

I believe that is correct.

This is where Lincoln is rightfully accused of making unconstitutional, illegal decisions.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I repeat what I said in an earlier post:

If the states were not allowed to secede, then the citizens of those secessionist states were still technically American citizens.  The war deprived many of them of their lives, but in most cases without the privilege of trial by jury, which is guaranteed by the constitution.
.

Lincoln never took the stand that slavery was illegal, or should be abolished. His stance was, as new States joined the United States, they would agree to be non-slave States. 

This is not true.  My understanding is that Lincoln was elected on a policy that all new states of the USA would not have any slavery.  However he subsequently decided - I believe it was early in 1862 - to abolish slavery throughout the USA.  He also decided for political reasons to delay announcing this new policy until later that year.

Our Civil War decided the question of State's rights. 

It decided that states have no right to secede.

Federal law trumps State law. A State cannot deny the federally guaranteed rights of any individual no matter where they (which State) lived. Once our federal Supreme Court decides a certain issues is a protected federal right, that is the law for all States. Same sex marriage is an example. So is integrated schools. 

In short, do states have any rights at all?  It seems to me that they have no rights whatever.  Should they even be termed states?

A person is a United States citizen first, not just a citizen of any one State. It does not matter where in the United States one lives, to have their federal rights protected. 

A big problem with this is that one man's federal right could be another man's federal wrong.

Our Constitution states any right not enumerated by the federal Constitution is left to the States to decide. That's why issues over the years fight in the Supreme Court to get federally protected status.

In other words, a lot of people in the USA do not like to see things decided by states.  That is not surprising when the states are effectively powerless.

This all gets legally complicated and the federal government has sent troops into States to enforce the rights of individuals. Again, the integration of schools is a good example.

I suppose it is easy to decide any legal quibble by sending in troops.  Who needs democracy when you can simply resort to violence?

I know little about the details of your form of government, but I can answer questions about our form of government.

I presume from the above that you are American. Do you accept that your form of government is founded in part at least upon violence?

I came across your blog through a random search and was intrigued by your post enough to respond.

Feel free to respond again.

The quote above in purple text is from this previous post: Mortocracy versus democracy

The only other time I have responded in depth to a comment was with this post: A reasoned approach to war

What exactly is a state?

I have found myself wondering of late about the proper definition of the word state. In some of my previous blog posts I have made use of Merriam Webster online dictionary, but on this occasion I will not be quoting it.

Earlier today I visited that site, and checked the definitions of three words: state, nation, and country.  I had planned to quote the definitions either in whole or in part, but I found the definitions so vague as to be not much use to me.  Up until today, I would have defined these words along the following lines:

A country is a geographical area occupied by people who for the most part share a common heritage and a common culture.  It has clear, recognised boundaries, and will either enjoy a degree of self-determination, or else will have done so in the past.

A nation is a country which currently enjoys a substantial degree of self-determination.  My definition of the word state would be similar although not identical, and it is worth noting that the two words are sometimes linked in the phrase nation state.

Even as I write, however, I feel uneasy with the above definitions.  For example, I have always regarded Wales as  country, but I'm not sure if it really fits the above definition.  Wales was brought together from a cluster of small states in the sixteenth century, but by a legislative process which abolished Welsh law and replaced it with English law.

Some readers might argue that the existence of the Welsh Assembly provides Wales with the degree of self-determination required for it to be classed as a country, but of course the Welsh Assembly was created by an act of parliament of 1998.

I could continue with this argument, but I will not.  I am not asking the reader to decide either way whether or not Wales could have been accurately described as a country prior to 1998.  I am merely observing that the question exists.  I am however prepared to say confidently that I have not tended in the past to regard Wales as either a state or a nation, as I have felt that it lacks a sufficient degree of self-determination.

By contrast, Scotland is easy to regard as a country.  It existed as a self-governing country for hundreds of years, and I have no problem with describing it as both a nation and a state for much of its history.  In 1707 it was united with England to form a new nation called Great Britain.  From that point on until 1998, Scotland continued to have its own legal and judicial system, and laws which applied in England did not necessarily apply in Scotland - and vice versa.

I have habitually regarded Scotland in this era as a country, but I have been less inclined to describe it as a nation, and I have never regarded it as a state.  An act of parliament of 1998 created the Scottish Parliament, whereby I believe that Scotland has a far stronger claim to be considered a nation, although I am still unwilling to describe it as a state.

The United States of America came into existence through a succession of events in the late eighteenth century which include the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Treaty of Paris in 1783.  There were initially just thirteen states, but this had increased to more than thirty at the outset of the year 1861.  In that year, seven states seceded from the Union, closely followed by four others.  All eleven states were forcibly returned to the union in 1865 following a war which claimed in the region of one million lives.

The USA now numbers fifty so-called states.  Each one has its own legislature, but so far as I am aware, not one of them since 1865 has even discussed becoming independent from the rest of the USA.  Nor so far as I am aware is there any recognised legal process whereby one of the so-called states can secede.

By contrast, an act of parliament of 2010 allowed the people of Scotland to vote for independence by referendum in the year 2014.  I am not aware that anyone in the United Kingdom denies that Scotland has the right to become independent if it so chooses, and on that basis Scotland has more right to be termed a state then any of the so-called states of the USA.

Related previous posts include:
Independence: Scotland must vote yes
Independence versus devolution
Mortocracy versus democracy

The proscription of Britain First

I rarely make changes to posts on this blog, aside from correcting errors of spelling or punctuation.  I can think of only one post which I deleted, and that was because it linked to photographs which were no longer available online.

Yesterday I read an item in a national newspaper to the effect that many of our obnoxious MPs had asked that the political party Britain First be proscribed as a terrorist organisation.  The rationale for this was apparently that it may have been linked to the supposed murder of Jo Cox, even though there is no evidence that Thomas Mair - the man convicted of her killing - was ever a member of Britain First, or that he had any connection with them, or that they ever condoned violent crime.

This morning I tried to find this press report, but could not.  Maybe it had been removed.  What I did find however was an item about the possible proscription of a group called National Action, and this too was linked to the supposed murder of Jo Cox.

I have already outlined in a previous post some of the reasons why the murder of Jo Cox was almost certainly a false flag.  I will add that Thomas Mair appears to be mentally unstable, barely spoke at all either when questioned by the police or while on trial, and that a press photograph of his book collection appears to show books in pristine condition - as if they had never been read.  He is also alleged to have visited anti-establishment websites on public access computers in libraries - even though local councils across Britain habitually deny access to such websites.

It does not surprise me that not one national newspaper has considered the possibility that the murder of Jo Cox was a hoax.  It also does not greatly surprise me that the only journalist for whom I have any admiration recently described Jo Cox as a shiningly good person. How does he know?  Has he ever met her?

One of the few things we know for certain about Jo Cox was that she nominated Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour Party, and then later said that she regretted doing so.  For the record, I'm not aware that Jeremy Corbyn has ever voted for British involvement in an illegal war.

Every British Prime Minister in my adult lifetime has approved of Britain taking part in at least one illegal war, and yet I do not see any MPs calling for either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats to be proscribed as the terrorist organisations which they undoubtedly are.

Related previous posts include:

Who murdered Jo Cox?

Britain First and Niemoeller's Prayer

Britain First and the fiction of a free country

We can't trust chameleon Dave

Graduate debt and nurses' salaries

It was recently reported that the trade union Unison had claimed that many nurses in the United Kingdom are living in poverty, and that some of them are even using food banks.

While I don't doubt their findings, the fact remains that the starting salary for a nurse in this country is nearly forty percent higher than the minimum wage.  In other words, many people in Britain earn less money than a nurse, and yet many of those people enjoy a lifestyle which is far from impoverished.

The point is that the cost of living in this country varies considerably, and is affected by such factors as whereabouts you live, what type of housing you occupy, and whether or not you have to travel to work.

For example, a person who lives in private rented accommodation in Greater London and travels a long distance to work will almost certainly have a much higher cost of living than someone who lives in social housing in a provincial city and walks to work.

When people argue the case for student loans, they often assert that the repayment of graduate debt is related to the ability to pay.  This however is quite simply not true.

If the ability to pay means anything at all, then it must relate to your disposable income - the amount of money you are left with after deduction of taxes and your necessary cost of living. The repayment of graduate debt is based on how much you earn, and not on your disposable income, and so is not related to the ability to pay.

Related previous posts include:
Glamour model with student debt

Uber lose tribunal claim

Uber is a mobile phone app which allows users to book a minicab.  The company which designed it is also called Uber.  Uber minicab drivers are all self-employed - or at least they were.

Two Uber drivers, supported by the trade union GMB, have recently won an employment tribunal claim whereby they are now deemed to be employees of Uber, and entitled to be paid the minimum wage.  Uber let it be known that they plan to appeal.

Uber has also reported that a large number of their drivers are unhappy with the tribunal ruling, as it undermines their self-employed status.  At the time of writing it is not clear how seriously their claims can be taken.

The minimum wage was created by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.  I remember reading this act a few years after it was passed into law, and felt at the time that it could be clearer on at least some points.  On the one hand I don't expect governments to get legislation right first time, but on the other hand I think that a little more thought could have gone into the drafting of the act.

I remember many years ago a woman who ran a post office in the north of Scotland took the Post Office to a tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage.  She won her case, and the Post Office announced that it would appeal.  They then abandoned their appeal, and instead defied the ruling, although the woman in question did have her payments increased.  About a year later another subpostmaster from Lancashire took the Post Office to tribunal in a bid to be paid the minimum wage, but was unsuccessful.

So far as I am aware, neither ruling was taken to appeal, and so neither ruling actually creates what is known as a binding precedent - in effect being the law.

Maybe now is the time for a revision of the minimum wage law.  As an absolute minimum, I think it should be a criminal offence for an employer who loses a tribunal claim to defy the ruling.  Either you abide by the ruling or you appeal.

Why this guff about Green?

As I write, the House of Commons has recently voted unanimously that the businessman Sir Philip Green should be stripped of his knighthood.  It is reported that this is the first time that MPs have ever held such a debate.  It is not however for MPs to determine whether or not someone should be deprived of an honour.  That decision rests with a  committee known as the Honours Forfeiture Committee.

The cause of this furore is that Green allegedly enriched himself and his family at the expense of just about everyone else connected with his company.

My first comment is that at a time when the lives of millions of people in this country are blighted by crime and poverty, our MPs have apparently got nothing better to do than denigrate an old man with lots of money.

If Green has broken any law, then let him be prosecuted.  If he has not broken any law, then maybe the House of Commons should debate whether or not the law on running limited companies should be revised.

For as long as I can remember, Britain has had a spiv economy, in which far too many company directors have been allowed to get rich without sufficient justification. Will that ever change?

Another comment is that the honours system in this country has over the years rewarded many people who make Green look saintly by comparison.  For example the evil warmonger George Bush holds an honorary knighthood, and the evil warmonger John Major is a Knight of the Garter.  Actually, these people were not really rewarded, because a knighthood is of course worthless.

Related previous posts include:
Who cares about the honours system?

The post-referendum political landscape

In the short space of time since the Brexit referendum, not a great deal seems to have changed in the realm of British politics.  David Cameron is no longer Prime Minister, but we still have a Conservative government.  Labour remains in opposition, with Jeremy Corbyn still at the helm.

Looking ahead, however, a lot could change.  Once Britain has left the EU, we will no longer be bound by the dictates of the European Union or its agencies.  We will still be bound by the dictates of the European Court of Human Rights, however, as that is an agency of the Council of Europe - an organisation which Britain has not yet voted to leave.

Another important point to note is that Britain will no longer have MEPs once Brexit has been achieved.  There will be no more European Parliament elections, as a result of which there will be one fewer set of elections conducted under a system of proportional representation.

It is possible that UKIP will cease to exist following Brexit, but I don't expect many people will be upset.  For example UKIP councillors can easily defect to another party, and thereby probably improve their chances of re-election.

Immigration will remain a big issue as there is no reason to think that Theresa May will limit immigration merely because it is easier for her to do so.  I therefore expect at least one anti-immigration party to enjoy some prominence in the year ahead, although not nearly enough to make a difference.

It is almost a truism of politics that you do not need to win power in order to exert an influence, and this is certainly true of UKIP.  It is no secret that David Cameron promised a referendum in order to stem the flow of support from his party to UKIP.

On immigration however it is a different matter.  In 2009, the British National Party had two MEPs, a London assembly member, and around one hundred councillors.  So far as I can make out, the only response to this from the establishment was to set up a parliamentary committee which did not achieve anything and was probably never intended to.

Related previous posts include:
Who murdered Jo Cox?
The power of the people