I thought the Civil War (War of Northern Aggresion for you southerners) settled that state's rights crap once and for all

A "greater good" means something that is above the interests of an individual. This is a socialist idea.

Here in America, we are individualists first. This is a capitalist idea. It puts the interest of a human being above those of the "humanity" as a whole, for without a human being there is no "humanity", but without a "humanity" there is still a human being.

no, D, you go on and on..

individualism is the basis of freedom.. the government deciding what is "the greater good" is the basis of tyranny..

the government forces the states to take money and then turns around and dictates terms of state policy?? that sounds like a subversion of the sovereignty of the states...

By Dragoness:

No offense but that is garbage. If it were not for the greater good of humanity we would not even have a Constitution or laws of the land. If it were not for the greater good our ancestors would not have traveled here for the human rights they felt they were not getting elsewhere. If it were not for the greater good we would never have been in any world war. If it were not for the greater good the states would not have a federal government to unite this into one country. It goes on and on.

The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire [2009], Montana [2009], Hawaii [2009], Michigan [2009], Missouri [2009], Arizona [2008], Oklahoma [2008], Georgia [1996], and California [1994] all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty. Some other states have done this in the past but then let the issue go. Additionally, the states of Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering similar measures. More well may follow, such as Wyoming and Mississippi.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Firestorm-Brewing-Between-by-La nce-L-Landon-090217-130.html

THE CALL
Issued March 31, 2008


MARCH 31—The Middlebury Institute has announced that the Third North American Secessionist Convention will be held in Manchester, New Hampshire, on November 14-16, 2008.

Delegates are expected from a majority of the three-dozen current secessionist organizations in the United States and Canada. As in the two previous conventions—in Burlington, Vermont, in 2006, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 2007—delegations will give reports on the activities in their areas in the previous year and trade information on strategizing, organizing, and politicking.

In previous years, participants have uniformly expressed enthusiasm for the conventions as showcases for the secessionist movement and workshops for the down-home business of spreading the secessionist message. Both meetings issued declarations of purpose and policy, available on the website, MiddleburyInstitute.org.

One highlight of the meeting will be a presentation of the idea of an independent Atlantic federation of Canadian maritime provinces and northern New England states. The proposal has been around for a number of years, but recently there has been renewed interest, especially in Canada, and this venue will provide a way to introduce it in this country in an impactful way.

In addition to delegates mandated by individual secessionist groups, individuals with a general interest in secession and separatism, or who might be considering organizing such a group, are invited to attend. All who intend to attend must contact the Director@MiddleburyInstitute.org, and of course the sooner the better.

As in the past, the Middlebury Institute is willing to underwrite the travel costs for some of the mandated representatives, especially from the West, who are genuinely unable to pay their own way.
http://middleburyinstitute.org/secessionconvention2008.html

Mar. 2008;
the Third North American Secessionist Convention?

Y'all act like you just found something new!

Most all those States began seccession proceedings when Bush was President.

Well, she is right on some things. I made it bold in the quote.

As for other things:

- Constitution makes individual a priority, it does not mention "greater good" in the sense to override any individual interests.

- Our ancestors came here for their individual human rights, and not for any "greater good" or public welfare.

- States united in order to establish a greater uninterrupted market and freedom of each and every individual. This did not impede on any individual right, until the idea of "greater good" was used to deny people their right given by the constitution, and afford them rights that were not in the constitution (since those rights all come at the expense of other individuals).