Dyer,
I didn’t say that the States were the property of the Union, aka the Nation aka the United States. Such an assertion is nonsense on the face of it (there is no Uinon, no Nation, no United States without a Union of the States).. What I said was that the American colonies were the property of Great Britain.
The Civil War settled the question of whether or not States can seceed. They can’r because they will be met with force if they try.
Just out of curiosity, what was the United States doing to the states that seceeded that was so horrible that they would do that? What did they hope to gain?

I think it was settled in all cases.

“In accepting original jurisdiction, the court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Bell, I misread your post as Re: ownership.
My belief is that they wanted states rights… and of course, to continue with slavery… The north had industrial manufacturing, with more and more mechanization (replacing people, just as automation does today) … The south, an agrarian society, had no mechanical machinery with which to replace it’s own extant “machinery,” the slave. Beyond that, there are a tremendous amount of complexities as to what the seceding states wanted.

Joel… I agree, “the Supremes” have made any secession null and void… But I’m certain such laws also exist in Egypt, Syria, etc., et. al…. just because it’s a law…. doesn’t make it right… And, the Supremes have overturned themselves on infrequent occasions (though one must be aware, they do everything in their power (in the final decision) to make it clear they are not overturning themselves, merely clarifying Stare decisis) .

Dyer,
The Confederate States wanted “State’s Rights” to do what?
The South was, indeed, an agrarian society, economically dependent on labor intensive crops. There was very little manufacturing in the South and most manufactured goods were imported from Europe
Slavery was a labor issue, not a human rights issue. Most people outside the South didn’t care one way or another–unless they were Abolitionists, who were considered unacceptably radical. What non-Southerners cared about was the expansion of slavery into Western Territories (refer Bloody Kansas). A significant number of people heading west prior to the Civil War were economic refugees from the South who couldn’t compete with slave labor back home and didn’t want to compete with it further west (Missouri Compromise et al).
Mexico and Central and South America declaring their independence from Spain in 1820 put an end to slavery in those countries and pretty much stopped the expansion of American slavery south. And yeah, Southern politicians had been talking about taking over Spanish colonies by force (refer Florida). But cut to the chase, by 1850, slavery was hemmed in, all chances of expanding economically into new territory pretty much shut down
The second problem was imports, as in tariffs raising the cost of manufactured goods
The third problem was the United States was changing. A lot of the power brokers at the time of the War for Independence were from Virginia, the Constitution itself was rigged to favor Southern gentlemen. They were losing that advantage as power shifted to Northern upstarts. The very idea that a nobody like Abraham Lincoln had the nerve to get himself elected president in 1860 must have driven these people into a frenzy. Well, actually it did.
That’s the Cliff Notes version
Now what do you mean by “States Rights”, what did the the power brokers in the Ante Bellum South mean by “States Rights” and whatever did they intend to do with them?

Or the politicians elected by blue states have been trying to by votes in red states vi government handouts.

Why would a politician in a blue state buy votes in red states? It makes no sense. Maybe Jim did not want to make sense.

I didn’t say “a politician in a blue state”, I said “the politicians elected by blue states”, a.k.a. Democrats.

Careful Ms Bell. the Constitution does not address everything…example EPA mandate for emission standards for automobiles. Also, in the Constitution where is the FDA, USDA, FBI, CIA etc mentioned?

And to think Cedric was laughing at my analogy about a crazy abusive woman who was spending us into bankruptcy, who refused to change her ways and actually got more extreme the more one tried to reason with her.

Exhibit A, right here, Cedric.

Mr Stubbs,
No kidding.
Except I wasn’t talking about the FDAUSDAFBICIA et al. I was pointing out to Mr Galt that the Constitution does not mandate that the Senate come up with a budget. Nothing does. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 directs the President to submit a budget to Congress where it is considered by the House and Senate budget committees. The Congressional Budget Office, established 1974, evaluates the budget. There is no requirement anywhere, not in the Constitution, not in law, that the House and/or Senate come up with a budget. They can come up with one if they want to, but they don’t have to
Now I could explain to you the difference between agencies and process, but why bother