Is secession even legal?

[Chris_]

If secession is illegal then we might as well stop calling ourselves a f'n Union and drop the "United States" from America.  ::)

MOST states entered into the Union voluntarily and all retained the right to leave it. Abraham Lincoln violated the oath of office he was sworn to uphold.

They gave up the right to secede when they entered.  Unless you can point to the exact verbiage where they retained that right (don't bother -- you can't).

Show me where. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

As for Texas, like any other state, they do have the right to secede.


.....and if you think our forefathers, in their wisdom, would enter into a union with NO means to get out, you're dumb as shit.

It doesn't work that way.  The States join the Union in perpetuity.  There is no "we reserve the right to leave" clause in any document wherein the States joined the Union.  And that would be nonsensical (dumb as shit) -- what would be the point?  That would be a confederation, not a union?

Like I said -- please provide a link where any State reserved the right to secede?

Also, please explain Texas v White.

This is your forum, but I won't be bullied.

It doesn't have to be written down.  The right of seccession is not an enumerated right.  It is nonetheless a right.  Our founding fathers, the very men who created this country, engaged in activities of both seccession and treason.  The question is not whether or not such a right exists, it is a right indestructible by mere mortals.  The question is under what conditions is it both moral and appropriate to attempt to secede.

That question has been answered by the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS is not the final answer, as I said it is a right given by nature's creator and therefore beyond the purview of the court.

So any entity can do whatever the hell it wants to do whenever it wants to do whatever it wanted to do.

The Creator Gave me the Right to rob liquor stores -- it is beyond the purview of the court.


How about that -- we are a nation of men, not laws, after all!

[USA4ME]

Paint It Black
 
Is secession even legal?

Just remember, these are the same idiots who would have asked this same question during the time of the American Revolution, i.e. "Are we allowed to go against the King?"

As for this other discussion, I don't know if sucession is legal or illegal, but it doesn't really matter.  At some point down the road the USA is going to either disappear into the dust bin of history just like Rome and the Greek empires, or it'll divide into several smaller countries and the borders within what was the USA will look like Europe.  It isn't going to last forever.  So the question is "Do people have the right to say 'enough is enough' and tell the powers that be to take a hike, just like the founding fathers did to England?"  You bet we do.

.

[Rebel]

So any entity can do whatever the hell it wants to do whenever it wants to do whatever it wanted to do.

The Creator Gave me the Right to rob liquor stores -- it is beyond the purview of the court.


How about that -- we are a nation of men, not laws, after all!

So, you think the SCOTUS is the end all be all? Then you really need to get better educated on the US Constitution. I'm still reading, but getting distracted by the convention.

[Vagabond]

If secession is illegal then we might as well stop calling ourselves a f'n Union and drop the "United States" from America. 

MOST states entered into the Union voluntarily and all retained the right to leave it. Abraham Lincoln violated the oath of office he was sworn to uphold.

They gave up the right to secede when they entered.  Unless you can point to the exact verbiage where they retained that right (don't bother -- you can't).

Show me where. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

As for Texas, like any other state, they do have the right to secede.


.....and if you think our forefathers, in their wisdom, would enter into a union with NO means to get out, you're dumb as shit.

It doesn't work that way.  The States join the Union in perpetuity.  There is no "we reserve the right to leave" clause in any document wherein the States joined the Union.  And that would be nonsensical (dumb as shit) -- what would be the point?  That would be a confederation, not a union?

Like I said -- please provide a link where any State reserved the right to secede?

Also, please explain Texas v White.

This is your forum, but I won't be bullied.

It doesn't have to be written down.  The right of seccession is not an enumerated right.  It is nonetheless a right.  Our founding fathers, the very men who created this country, engaged in activities of both seccession and treason.  The question is not whether or not such a right exists, it is a right indestructible by mere mortals.  The question is under what conditions is it both moral and appropriate to attempt to secede.

That question has been answered by the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS is not the final answer, as I said it is a right given by nature's creator and therefore beyond the purview of the court.

So any entity can do whatever the hell it wants to do whenever it wants to do whatever it wanted to do.

The Creator Gave me the Right to rob liquor stores -- it is beyond the purview of the court.


How about that -- we are a nation of men, not laws, after all!

I am not aware of a creator saying one may not take the property of another without agreed upon compensation.  I am claiming that no consitution can remove certain rights.  Such as the right to free speech, the right to self defense, the right to be secure in one's possessions, the right to generally be left alone by one's government.  These are not controversial.  I would almost say you are practicing a reducto ad absurdum argument here.

[Chris_]

So any entity can do whatever the hell it wants to do whenever it wants to do whatever it wanted to do.

The Creator Gave me the Right to rob liquor stores -- it is beyond the purview of the court.


How about that -- we are a nation of men, not laws, after all!

I am not aware of a creator saying one may not take the property of another without agreed upon compensation.  I am claiming that no consitution can remove certain rights.  Such as the right to free speech, the right to self defense, the right to be secure in one's possessions, the right to generally be left alone by one's government.  These are not controversial.  I would almost say you are practicing a reducto ad absurdum argument here.

You might say that but it would not be true.

"Certain" rights?  So who chooses which rights are subject to the USC and which rights are not?  You? 

Either we hew to the system of laws and jurisprudence we agree to or we have anarchy.  We agreed that the SCOTUS is the final say -- we might disagree but we agree to be bound by those decisions.

Learn a little about the law and the USC before copying and pasting Latin expressions you clearly don't understand.

[Vagabond]

Paint It Black
 
Is secession even legal?

Just remember, these are the same idiots who would have asked this same question during the time of the American Revolution, i.e. "Are we allowed to go against the King?"

As for this other discussion, I don't know if sucession is legal or illegal, but it doesn't really matter.  At some point down the road the USA is going to either disappear into the dust bin of history just like Rome and the Greek empires, or it'll divide into several smaller countries and the borders within what was the USA will look like Europe.  It isn't going to last forever.  So the question is "Do people have the right to say 'enough is enough' and tell the powers that be to take a hike, just like the founding fathers did to England?"  You bet we do.

.

I am not sure it has to be that way.  The federal government was never meant to be as intrusive as it has become.  If it kept itself strictly concerned with affairs between states and between the United States and foreign countries, we would all be better off.  Of course, that would be the very essence of the powers that be taking a hike.

[Airwolf]

Interesting discussion, I am learning a lot. Thanks guys.  A bit off topic but, would it be possible to eject a state from the union?

I sure as hell hope so.  I could start with my stitch ripper, tearing out the stars for California and Massachutsetts right now.

You are the weakest links.  Good-bye.

Add New York to that and I think we could do all right

[Chris_]

I am not sure it has to be that way.  The federal government was never meant to be as intrusive as it has become.  If it kept itself strictly concerned with affairs between states and between the United States and foreign countries, we would all be better off.  Of course, that would be the very essence of the powers that be taking a hike.

That has nothing to do with the OP question.

[Vagabond]

So any entity can do whatever the hell it wants to do whenever it wants to do whatever it wanted to do.

The Creator Gave me the Right to rob liquor stores -- it is beyond the purview of the court.


How about that -- we are a nation of men, not laws, after all!

I am not aware of a creator saying one may not take the property of another without agreed upon compensation.  I am claiming that no consitution can remove certain rights.  Such as the right to free speech, the right to self defense, the right to be secure in one's possessions, the right to generally be left alone by one's government.  These are not controversial.  I would almost say you are practicing a reducto ad absurdum argument here.

You might say that but it would not be true.

"Certain" rights?  So who chooses which rights are subject to the USC and which rights are not?  You? 

Either we hew to the system of laws and jurisprudence we agree to or we have anarchy.  We agreed that the SCOTUS is the final say -- we might disagree but we agree to be bound by those decisions.

Learn a little about the law and the USC before copying and pasting Latin expressions you clearly don't understand.

"We" did not agree that a bunch of unelected black robed tyrants in any quantity are the final say.  One could say that the spinelessness of our politicians have made it that way.  If the Supreme Court decrees that we do not have a right to personal self defense are when then stripped of that right?  You?  Perhaps.  As for me, I shall retain mine as it is beyond their purview.  If the Supreme Court decrees tomorrow that the right to free speech and freedom of the press is limited only to those items and technologies such as were available when the constitution was written, would the government then be possessed of a right to censor the internet, radio, and television mediums?  My answer should be obvious.  Should the Supreme Court declare in one of it's fits of declaration, that warrants are not necessary, nor is their any need for the accused to confront their accusers and evidence against them, would it then be A-Okay for the local and federal law enforcement agencies to start picking up citizens and lock them up with such trials and evidence.  No, I don't quite see it.  However, you should feel free to be constrained by any leash you wish.

Robbery is against the law in every jurisdiction I have ever been in.  With penalties ranging from jail time to death.  Go anywhere, such items as robbery, murder, and rape are universally condemned.  I say again, you are attempting a reduction to the absurd argument in support of the notion of judicial review.  I am saying that the doctrine of judicial review is tyrannical in nature and certainly anti-democratic.

Since you have commenced with the absurd, I'll ask you this.  Should the Supreme court decree that two plus two equals five, does it?

[Vagabond]

I am not sure it has to be that way.  The federal government was never meant to be as intrusive as it has become.  If it kept itself strictly concerned with affairs between states and between the United States and foreign countries, we would all be better off.  Of course, that would be the very essence of the powers that be taking a hike.

That has nothing to do with the OP question.

USA4ME was addressing the right of people to tell other people who are not there and do not deal with the same problems to stop interfering with them.  The federal government will always be intrusive to some degree, but it is the right of the states and the citizenry to ask, how much is enough?  He is also right that this will eventually be settled through the fracturing of the USA or my option of the federal government butting out.

[Rebel]

Hey northern conservatives who think it's illegal....and I will prove you wrong, this wouldn't be an ISSUE if YOU controlled your states.

[rich_t]

Vey well stated series of post vagabond.

You and I seem to have a lot in common concerning the pervue of the federal government.

I think that the federal goverment has far exceeded the authority and power that our founding fathers had in mind.

We have a federal government that institutionally seems to have forgotten that it is "we the people" that are the real soveriegn power in this country.  Far too many of those currently inside that institution, living in their gated communities, seem to think we are there to serve THEM, instead of them serving us.

I assure you that this isn't what our founders had in mind.

As one example: I give you Nacy Pelosi.  Even though polss show that 70+% of the American people are in favor of increased off shore drilling.  She is abusing her power and blocking it.

Just who the hell does she think she is to thart the will of the people in such a fashion?  She obviously has forgotten that she was sent to the Hill to work "for" us.

[USA4ME]

I am not sure it has to be that way.  The federal government was never meant to be as intrusive as it has become.  If it kept itself strictly concerned with affairs between states and between the United States and foreign countries, we would all be better off.  Of course, that would be the very essence of the powers that be taking a hike.

That would be preferable, the only problem I'm seeing is that once power has been given generally the only way to wrest it away is through bloodshed.  And if the people were to get together and finally cast off these totalitarian libs/socialists, I just wonder how anxious they'd be for things to go back to the way they had just fought to overthrow.  IOW, they might determine that taking the chance of it happening again isn't worth it, that forming smaller groups might be more managable.

But it's all guessing at this point as to what will happen, except that when it does fall apart the libs are going to get the short end of the stick (IOW, they'll be the red-coats that have to, and will, be eliminated).  But the country won't last forever.  That we've lasted 232 years is pretty amazing.  We may make it another 100.  But 150 or 200 more years?  I highly doubt it.

.

[rich_t]

I am not sure it has to be that way.  The federal government was never meant to be as intrusive as it has become.  If it kept itself strictly concerned with affairs between states and between the United States and foreign countries, we would all be better off.  Of course, that would be the very essence of the powers that be taking a hike.

That would be preferable, the only problem I'm seeing is that once power has been given generally the only way to wrest it away is through bloodshed.  And if the people were to get together and finally cast off these totalitarian libs/socialists, I just wonder how anxious they'd be for things to go back to the way they had just fought to overthrow.  IOW, they might determine that taking the chance of it happening again isn't worth it, that forming smaller groups might be more managable.

But it's all guessing at this point as to what will happen, except that when it does fall apart the libs are going to get the short end of the stick (IOW, they'll be the red-coats that have to, and will, be eliminated).  But the country won't last forever.  That we've lasted 232 years is pretty amazing.  We may make it another 100.  But 150 or 200 more years?  I highly doubt it.

.

At the rate things are currently going, I will be surprised if the US makes it another 50 years before fracturing.

[Chris_]

Vey well stated series of post vagabond.

You and I seem to have a lot in common concerning the pervue of the federal government.

I think that the federal goverment has far exceeded the authority and power that our founding fathers had in mind.

We have a federal government that institutionally seems to have forgotten that it is "we the people" that are the real soveriegn power in this country.  Far too many of those currently inside that institution, living in their gated communities, seem to think we are there to serve THEM, instead of them serving us.

I assure you that this isn't what our founders had in mind.

As one example: I give you Nacy Pelosi.  Even though polss show that 70+% of the American people are in favor of increased off shore drilling.  She is abusing her power and blocking it.

Just who the hell does she think she is to thart the will of the people in such a fashion?  She obviously has forgotten that she was sent to the Hill to work "for" us.

Again, not the issue at hand.

There should be no WOD.  There should be no WOP.  The IX and X amendments should be the FIRST AND FOREMOST of all others!!!!!!

But if you ask whether there is a "right" to secede, the answer is NO.

[Vagabond]

Vey well stated series of post vagabond.

You and I seem to have a lot in common concerning the pervue of the federal government.

I think that the federal goverment has far exceeded the authority and power that our founding fathers had in mind.

We have a federal government that institutionally seems to have forgotten that it is "we the people" that are the real soveriegn power in this country.  Far too many of those currently inside that institution, living in their gated communities, seem to think we are there to serve THEM, instead of them serving us.

I assure you that this isn't what our founders had in mind.

As one example: I give you Nacy Pelosi.  Even though polss show that 70+% of the American people are in favor of increased off shore drilling.  She is abusing her power and blocking it.

Just who the hell does she think she is to thart the will of the people in such a fashion?  She obviously has forgotten that she was sent to the Hill to work "for" us.

I fall into the line of thinking regarding any issue, that if it is of concern to a government, then the lowest possible level should be responsible for it.  I believe that this is close to what the founding fathers had in mind.

Nancy Pelosi and congress in general is corruption on parade.  Even if it is a fairly benign corruption (political enemies aren't turning up dead, yet), it is not something that can not hold and will continue to fester and worsen unless it is lanced and treated with anti-biotic.  First, remove any issue that doesn't deal with a narrow interpretation of interstate commerce or foreign affairs.  Second, make it illegal for any entity except a US citizen to give any politician anything and forbid any gift except money.  That would go a long way towards fixing the current mess.

[rich_t]

There should be no WOD.  There should be no WOP

Huh?

[Vagabond]

Vey well stated series of post vagabond.

You and I seem to have a lot in common concerning the pervue of the federal government.

I think that the federal goverment has far exceeded the authority and power that our founding fathers had in mind.

We have a federal government that institutionally seems to have forgotten that it is "we the people" that are the real soveriegn power in this country.  Far too many of those currently inside that institution, living in their gated communities, seem to think we are there to serve THEM, instead of them serving us.

I assure you that this isn't what our founders had in mind.

As one example: I give you Nacy Pelosi.  Even though polss show that 70+% of the American people are in favor of increased off shore drilling.  She is abusing her power and blocking it.

Just who the hell does she think she is to thart the will of the people in such a fashion?  She obviously has forgotten that she was sent to the Hill to work "for" us.

Again, not the issue at hand.

There should be no WOD.  There should be no WOP.  The IX and X amendments should be the FIRST AND FOREMOST of all others!!!!!!

But if you ask whether there is a "right" to secede, the answer is NO.

I can only be thankful to nature's creator that it seems people such as George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, Francis Marion, Nathaniel Greene, and Samuel Adams seem to have disagreed with you and bid you a good night.  Cheers!

[Vagabond]

There should be no WOD.  There should be no WOP

Huh?

The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.

My take on it is that if it weren't for all the government entitlement programs and associated beauracracies supporting people who do stupid things like take drugs, then drugs would dissappear as a problem.  Poverty will always be with us.

[rich_t]

But if you ask whether there is a "right" to secede, the answer is NO.

Oh really?  What do you think the Declaration of Independence was all about?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Can you read that document and honestly think our founding fathers meant the concepts expressed therein was only a one time deal?

I don't see it that way when I read it.

[rich_t]

Vey well stated series of post vagabond.

You and I seem to have a lot in common concerning the pervue of the federal government.

I think that the federal goverment has far exceeded the authority and power that our founding fathers had in mind.

We have a federal government that institutionally seems to have forgotten that it is "we the people" that are the real soveriegn power in this country.  Far too many of those currently inside that institution, living in their gated communities, seem to think we are there to serve THEM, instead of them serving us.

I assure you that this isn't what our founders had in mind.

As one example: I give you Nacy Pelosi.  Even though polss show that 70+% of the American people are in favor of increased off shore drilling.  She is abusing her power and blocking it.

Just who the hell does she think she is to thart the will of the people in such a fashion?  She obviously has forgotten that she was sent to the Hill to work "for" us.

I fall into the line of thinking regarding any issue, that if it is of concern to a government, then the lowest possible level should be responsible for it.  I believe that this is close to what the founding fathers had in mind.

Nancy Pelosi and congress in general is corruption on parade.  Even if it is a fairly benign corruption (political enemies aren't turning up dead, yet), it is not something that can not hold and will continue to fester and worsen unless it is lanced and treated with anti-biotic.  First, remove any issue that doesn't deal with a narrow interpretation of interstate commerce or foreign affairs.  Second, make it illegal for any entity except a US citizen to give any politician anything and forbid any gift except money.  That would go a long way towards fixing the current mess.

I have no argument with that.

[Chris_]

Vey well stated series of post vagabond.

You and I seem to have a lot in common concerning the pervue of the federal government.

I think that the federal goverment has far exceeded the authority and power that our founding fathers had in mind.

We have a federal government that institutionally seems to have forgotten that it is "we the people" that are the real soveriegn power in this country.  Far too many of those currently inside that institution, living in their gated communities, seem to think we are there to serve THEM, instead of them serving us.

I assure you that this isn't what our founders had in mind.

As one example: I give you Nacy Pelosi.  Even though polss show that 70+% of the American people are in favor of increased off shore drilling.  She is abusing her power and blocking it.

Just who the hell does she think she is to thart the will of the people in such a fashion?  She obviously has forgotten that she was sent to the Hill to work "for" us.

Again, not the issue at hand.

There should be no WOD.  There should be no WOP.  The IX and X amendments should be the FIRST AND FOREMOST of all others!!!!!!

But if you ask whether there is a "right" to secede, the answer is NO.

I can only be thankful to nature's creator that it seems people such as George Washinton, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, Francis Marion, Nathaniel Greene, and Samuel Adams seem to have disagreed with you and bid you a good night.  Cheers! :cheersmate:

That is such a non-response as to be silly.  You basically say "well if I want to do something, I have the cover of the Founding Fathers to do whatever I want -- and I can list their names, too!"

Again you pick and choose what the Creator is Ok with and what He is not.

If the Southron states didn't want to be part of the USA, they should not have joined.

[rich_t]

There should be no WOD.  There should be no WOP

Huh?

The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.

My take on it is that if it weren't for all the government entitlement programs and associated beauracracies supporting people who do stupid things like take drugs, then drugs would dissappear as a problem.  Poverty will always be with us.

  Some days I'm a little slow on the uptake.

I agree with you.

On a side note, if the federal government was serious about the WOD, illegal drug possession and sale would be a capitol offense.

Instead they spend billions per year on a "war" they have NO intention of winning.

[Rebel]

Yeah Freedumb, right. 

Our forefathers, who wanted to get OUT of a country that had ALL the power, wanted to join a country where they were in the same shape.

Go sell crazy some place else. Looks like the damn SCOTUS decision you provided was about Texas, and their unique position, not about the states as a whole. 

[Rebel]

Do states have a right to secede? Not yes, but HELL yes. If the majority of the voters of a state want to secede, it's allowable because of the 10th Amendment. The reason it HASN'T happened....since 1861, is no state felt the NEED to leave. Now? I'm starting to reassess that situation.

....and I think the Posse Comitatus Act kinda stated that a President doing what Lincoln did was unconstitutional.