The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: bijou on September 02, 2008, 09:34:59 AM
-
The Palinophobia is still rife at DU with huge numbers of threads still being posted. In an effort to find a new angle I stumbled on this:
Paint It Black (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-02-08 09:51 AM
Original message
Is secession even legal?
Advertisements [?]Usually when the topic of secession comes up, it conjures images of the Confederacy, slavery, rebel flag waving rednecks, etc. But with the choice of Palin to be McCain's running mate, secessionist movements are once again in the news, albeit from a very different place - Alaska. Indeed, there are currently several active secessionist movements across the United States, everywhere from Alaska to New Hampshire to the old Confederacy (don't they ever give up?).
I'm pretty sure that I've read several places that secession is indeed illegal, that the Constitution doesn't even cover it. So what would happen nowadays if a state held a referendum to secede, and attempted to do so peacefully?
no_hypocrisy (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-02-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't believe it's in the Constitution, and how it would play out as
Edited on Tue Sep-02-08 10:02 AM by no_hypocrisy
states rights has yet to be tested. Lincoln didn't recognize the secession of the southern states. An area of a municipality can remove itself from that host municipality and proclaim it an indendependent, autonomous entity. Same thing with counties. But I'm uncertain how that plays out as a macrocosm of states splitting or a union of states splitting. Something tells me it would require an amendment to the Constitution to make it "legal".
NoMoreMyths (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-02-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. In terms of choice and diversity, I'd say it should be
In terms of thousands of years of history and momentum, it won't be done peacefully.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3903837
Should they not be using their time to cheerlead for Obama rather than get distracted by decades old news?
-
Is PIB insinuating a modern Alaskan secessionist movement would be sympathetic to the institution of slavery?
-
So should we go back in their own archives and pull out the "Jesusland" posts from 2000 and 2004? :doh:
-
So should we go back in their own archives and pull out the "Jesusland" posts from 2000 and 2004? :doh:
The DUmmies were hot to move to California to help push the secessionist movement in that state.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1911863
here is a 2004 article about it.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2004-12-08/news/how-to-secede-from-jesusland-without-really-fighting/
-
I dunno; maybe the primitives should be asking their fellow Vermontese primitives.
For quite some time, some primitives (more in real life than on Skins's island, though) have been calling for a free and independent Vermont, as it had been circa 1783-1791.
However, there's something wrong with the way the primitive Vermontese successionists look at the issue; for some reason, they seem to think that if Vermont were an independent country, Vermont could still send Patrick "Joe McCarthy" Leahy and Jr. to the U.S. Senate to represent them, and all the disbursements from the U.S. Treasury (grants, social security, medicare, welfare, whatnot) would continue.
-
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.
-
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.
You're arguing a nullity, which isn't unusual on this topic. Nothing says it is legal, nothing says it isn't. Secession simply isn't mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution. Arguably, it would be legal if the State wished to do it and also had the consent of the Union as a whole, which would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to specify a procedure.
Not so sure about the Texas thing, I think I remember reading there was something about their reintegration into the Union that gave up that original reservation of the power. I'm not in Texas and realistically it ain't even remotely happening (unless to become the northernmost province of Mexico) in the foreseeable future, so I'm not going to go dig for it.
-
It's legal for Texas.
Montana as well. They made sure the clause was written into their charter for statehood.
-
It's legal for Texas.
it is legal for Texas... I did a whole speech about it in college.
-
You're arguing a nullity, which isn't unusual on this topic. Nothing says it is legal, nothing says it isn't. Secession simply isn't mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution. Arguably, it would be legal if the State wished to do it and also had the consent of the Union as a whole, which would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to specify a procedure.
Oh, we need the approval of other states before remove ourselves from a voluntary union? Yeah, I'm saying no. If France wanted to get out of the EU, that would be up to the citizens of France, not the citizens of Italy. When the federal government starts working against the interests of the states, it's the state's right to dissolve that union. It's why governors are elected by the people, not selected by the federal government.
-
You're arguing a nullity, which isn't unusual on this topic. Nothing says it is legal, nothing says it isn't. Secession simply isn't mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution. Arguably, it would be legal if the State wished to do it and also had the consent of the Union as a whole, which would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to specify a procedure.
Oh, we need the approval of other states before remove ourselves from a voluntary union? Yeah, I'm saying no. If France wanted to get out of the EU, that would be up to the citizens of France, not the citizens of Italy. When the federal government starts working against the interests of the states, it's the state's right to dissolve that union. It's why governors are elected by the people, not selected by the federal government.
I don't think it's that simple. The contrary argument to what you're saying is that there is a permanent change of relationship upon a State joining the Union, which involves part of the State's sovereignity being irrevocably surrendered, the only way it can be recalled is with the consent of the entity to which it was surrendered. I don't think your analogy to the EU fits that well, as I don't think joining it it is presumed to be irrevocable. In the case of the United States it's more analogous to an adoption. One thing that is pretty unalterably established legally is that State property which has been ceded for Federal installations (and the cession formally accepted by the Federal government) is revocable only with the consent of the Federal government. The State cannot get it back just by declaring it State property again, of course the unlawful seizure of such Federal property by that means was the primary spark from attempted secession to shooting war back in 1861.
-
Whoa, where in the US Constitution does it say that state's must surrender their sovereignty to join the union? Don't know if you've read it or not, but the sole purpose of the United States is to provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce between the states. Now, if there's a new amendment out there that I don't know about, maybe the 10.5th or something, I'd love to hear about it.
The federal government is WAY past what it was intended to do. States didn't give up their sovereignty when they joined the union. It's why Bush can't just order federal troops into a state and it's why he couldn't just send in aid after Katrina without the request of the governor of Louisiana.
-
Is secession even legal?
The stupid is running rampant, alongside the hatred. This is the kind of dim-witted limp-wristed post that is typical of stevenumbers at his best. Maybe DUmmy Paint It Black is just copying that mesmerizing stevenumbers style.
-
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?
-
So should we go back in their own archives and pull out the "Jesusland" posts from 2000 and 2004? :doh:
The DUmmies were hot to move to California to help push the secessionist movement in that state.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1911863
here is a 2004 article about it.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2004-12-08/news/how-to-secede-from-jesusland-without-really-fighting/
If WW2 had not happened there would have been a 49th state called Jefferson thet would have stretchd from below Red Bluff Ca. to above Medford Oregon , US & State senators were behind the State of Jefferson and it was on the fast track (Reguardless of what WIKIPEDIA SAYS ) i KNOW OLD TIMERS INVOLVED WITH THIS MOVEMENT (and it did not start in a Redding Ca. or Ashland Oregon barber shop) but the Japs ruined the whole thing ...
-
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.
-
Whoa, where in the US Constitution does it say that state's must surrender their sovereignty to join the union? Don't know if you've read it or not, but the sole purpose of the United States is to provide for the common defense and regulate interstate commerce between the states. Now, if there's a new amendment out there that I don't know about, maybe the 10.5th or something, I'd love to hear about it.
The federal government is WAY past what it was intended to do. States didn't give up their sovereignty when they joined the union. It's why Bush can't just order federal troops into a state and it's why he couldn't just send in aid after Katrina without the request of the governor of Louisiana.
Well, yeah, I have, and while those are the two biggies, there is really a lot more to Federal sovereign power than you are taking into account, including the exclusive power to conclude treaties with foreign powers or otherwise conduct foreign affairs, which goes way beyond just providing for the common defense. The fact that the States do not control their own borders (in the sense of having power to exclude people or levy tariffs) can be regarded in part as a Commerce Clause issue, but there are aspects of both 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause and as well as tariff/excise issues as well. Both the power to control their borders and deal with foreign nations are therefore aspects of sovereignity that were indeed surrendered upon accession to the Union.
-
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.
You're arguing a nullity, which isn't unusual on this topic. Nothing says it is legal, nothing says it isn't. Secession simply isn't mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution. Arguably, it would be legal if the State wished to do it and also had the consent of the Union as a whole, which would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to specify a procedure.
Not so sure about the Texas thing, I think I remember reading there was something about their reintegration into the Union that gave up that original reservation of the power. I'm not in Texas and realistically it ain't even remotely happening (unless to become the northernmost province of Mexico) in the foreseeable future, so I'm not going to go dig for it.
Andrew Jackson did not believe that such a right existed in the constitution. Since he was the first president to face such a problem I guess we would have to think about what he had to say about it during the nullification crisis. He was of the opinion that if the union of the states could be dissolved at will and for whatever reason by any state, that would endanger and collapse the entire union.
Now, I would argue that secession is indeed a right, otherwise how exactly did this nation known as the United States come into being, however I would question the wisdom of dissolving the union for any but the most celestial of causes.
-
You're arguing a nullity, which isn't unusual on this topic. Nothing says it is legal, nothing says it isn't. Secession simply isn't mentioned one way or the other in the Constitution. Arguably, it would be legal if the State wished to do it and also had the consent of the Union as a whole, which would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to specify a procedure.
Oh, we need the approval of other states before remove ourselves from a voluntary union? Yeah, I'm saying no. If France wanted to get out of the EU, that would be up to the citizens of France, not the citizens of Italy. When the federal government starts working against the interests of the states, it's the state's right to dissolve that union. It's why governors are elected by the people, not selected by the federal government.
I don't think it's that simple. The contrary argument to what you're saying is that there is a permanent change of relationship upon a State joining the Union, which involves part of the State's sovereignity being irrevocably surrendered, the only way it can be recalled is with the consent of the entity to which it was surrendered. I don't think your analogy to the EU fits that well, as I don't think joining it it is presumed to be irrevocable. In the case of the United States it's more analogous to an adoption. One thing that is pretty unalterably established legally is that State property which has been ceded for Federal installations (and the cession formally accepted by the Federal government) is revocable only with the consent of the Federal government. The State cannot get it back just by declaring it State property again, of course the unlawful seizure of such Federal property by that means was the primary spark from attempted secession to shooting war back in 1861.
Technically, that piece of property was only attacked after an officer of the government of the United States broke his word and occupied it. He made he and his men a threat to commerce within the port of Charleston.
-
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?
There has been an argument to that effect. I believe that if three-fourths of the remaining states as well as two thirds of the remaining members. of congress signed of on it, then yes it likely would be legal.
-
Andrew Jackson did not believe that such a right existed in the constitution. Since he was the first president to face such a problem I guess we would have to think about what he had to say about it during the nullification crisis. He was of the opinion that if the union of the states could be dissolved at will and for whatever reason by any state, that would endanger and collapse the entire union.
The 10th Amendment automatically makes Jackson wrong in this case.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Quite simply, the Constitution does not give any branch of the Federal government specific authority to restrain states who choose to leave the Union, nor does it forbid the right to leave the Union to the States. So, according to the 10th Amendment, that right is BY DEFAULT "reserved to the States respectively".
-
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?
There has been an argument to that effect. I believe that if three-fourths of the remaining states as well as two thirds of the remaining members. of congress signed of on it, then yes it likely would be legal.
Thanks. It would be pretty difficult then, which I suppose is the aim. Unlikely that the country would be polarised to that degree.
-
Technically, that piece of property was only attacked after an officer of the government of the United States broke his word and occupied it. He made he and his men a threat to commerce within the port of Charleston.
I see, once property is stolen it becomes the property of the thief, and the thief is therefore fully justified in firing the first shot to get the property that will become his under that rule, because after all the victim might fight back if he doesn't. Not buying any today, thanks, but it's not really germane to the issue of whether secession is legal at all.
-
It's legal for Texas.
It didn't work out too well for Texas the last time they tried to secede from the union. I think the civil war settled that question pretty clearly.
-
It's legal for Texas.
It didn't work out too well for Texas the last time they tried to secede from the union. I think the civil war settled that question pretty clearly.
So North Vietnam was right? That how that works? :whatever:
-
Technically, that piece of property was only attacked after an officer of the government of the United States broke his word and occupied it. He made he and his men a threat to commerce within the port of Charleston.
I see, once property is stolen it becomes the property of the thief, and the thief is therefore fully justified in firing the first shot to get the property that will become his under that rule, because after all the victim might fight back if he doesn't. Not buying any today, thanks, but it's not really germane to the issue of whether secession is legal at all.
They were given an ample time to vacate, DT. Would the United States allow Russia to occupy Sandy Hook and the southern tip of Long Island?
-
It's legal for Texas.
It didn't work out too well for Texas the last time they tried to secede from the union. I think the civil war settled that question pretty clearly.
Yes, but all that happened before TomInTib. Remember, in case of insurrection, all he needs is a weapon he can trust, and some solid food.
-
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.
In more way than one!
-
Technically, that piece of property was only attacked after an officer of the government of the United States broke his word and occupied it. He made he and his men a threat to commerce within the port of Charleston.
I see, once property is stolen it becomes the property of the thief, and the thief is therefore fully justified in firing the first shot to get the property that will become his under that rule, because after all the victim might fight back if he doesn't. Not buying any today, thanks, but it's not really germane to the issue of whether secession is legal at all.
They were given an ample time to vacate, DT. Would the United States allow Russia to occupy Sandy Hook and the southern tip of Long Island?
I, for one, would be all in favor of that . . . ;) :tongue: It would clean up the mess there.
-
It's legal for Texas.
It didn't work out too well for Texas the last time they tried to secede from the union. I think the civil war settled that question pretty clearly.
Yes, but all that happened before TomInTib. Remember, in case of insurrection, all he needs is a weapon he can trust, and some solid food.
...and a SecNav to almost shoot afterwards. :lmao:
-
Technically, that piece of property was only attacked after an officer of the government of the United States broke his word and occupied it. He made he and his men a threat to commerce within the port of Charleston.
I see, once property is stolen it becomes the property of the thief, and the thief is therefore fully justified in firing the first shot to get the property that will become his under that rule, because after all the victim might fight back if he doesn't. Not buying any today, thanks, but it's not really germane to the issue of whether secession is legal at all.
Not quite, it was unoccupied under the agreement between the Federal garrison and Representatives of the state of South Carolina. It was to remain unoccupied until the government of South Carolina and the government of the United States came to an agreement on it. Further, South Carolina was being very hospitable to the garrison troops and supplying them. That was until the garrison commander, under the cover of darkness after midnight, moved his troops to occupy Fort Sumter.
Whether you believe in seccession or not, he did not act within his word. Further, Lincoln was conducting a military resupply of that Fort. It wasn't thievery, it was self defense.
-
It's legal for Texas.
Old Wive's Tale -- it is not.
-
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).
-
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.
No, in the Reconstruction many of the winning states (that would be the Northern Aggressors to you Southrons) called for the idea of "Jr. States" or outright annexation. Lincoln, in his wisdom, said "No -- this was an internal conflict and it is over. Head home boys."
Officially, there was no "Civil War." There was a civil insurrection that was suppressed.
-
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 infinite wisdom, would enter into a union with NO means to get out, you're dumb as shit. To put it mildly.
-
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.
-
If secession were legal DUmmies could claim themselves duly disaffected by the political process and secede and demand the federal government surrender all assets within their territory.
I know that sounds tempting but then so would the Ronulans, the illegal immigrants and any other faction that could conjure 51% of its local vote.
Who here would surrender the naval base in San Francisco to the local cretins or the nuke missile silos in the midwest?
It's that very same factionalism the federalists warned against leading us away from the AoC to our current Constitution.
-
As for Texas, like any other state, they do have the right to secede.
The Urban Myth of which I refer is that The Republic of Texas DID reserve the right to secede if they didn't like being part of the USA. There is no such reservation.
-
If secession were legal DUmmies could claim themselves duly disaffected by the political process and secede and demand the federal government surrender all assets within their territory.
I know that sounds tempting but then so would the Ronulans, the illegal immigrants and any other faction that could conjure 51% of its local vote.
Who here would surrender the naval base in San Francisco to the local cretins or the nuke missile silos in the midwest?
It's that very same factionalism the federalists warned against leading us away from the AoC to our current Constitution.
Again, I reference Texas v White.
-
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.
D6 DID provide you a link...to the US Constitution. Again, you're wrong. There is no way in HELL our forefathers would have entered into a union without the ability to leave if it didn't serve the best interests of the state. Now, show me the link that shows we CAN'T leave.
If you think I'm "bullying" you, fine. I'm not doing it as an Admin. I'm doing it as Rebel. I'm aware of the appearance and trust me, I'm fine with the dual-role of being Admin/Poster. I've done it for many years at NCAABBS. It's why I knew I could be a better Admin than Gator. You wanna go after me in full strength, go right ahead. You won't be banned for it. Please don't EVER think that when debating me. If I ever do that I'll request to be removed.
Snugs, San Francisco is a city, not a state.
I would also like to add, I find it quite funny that northern and western conservatives bash southern conservatives. Sorry, but if it weren't for us, the entire COUNTRY would look like Detroit right now. :whatever:
-
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.
D6 DID provide you a link...to the US Constitution. Again, you're wrong. There is no way in HELL our forefathers would have entered into a union without the ability to leave if it didn't serve the best interests of the state. Now, show me the link that shows we CAN'T leave.
If you think I'm "bullying" you, fine. I'm not doing it as an Admin. I'm doing it as Rebel. I'm aware of the appearance and trust me, I'm fine with the dual-role of being Admin/Poster. I've done it for many years at NCAABBS. It's why I knew I could be a better Admin than Gator. You wanna go after me in full strength, go right ahead. You won't be banned for it. Please don't EVER think that when debating me. If I ever do that I'll request to be removed.
Snugs, San Francisco is a city, not a state.
I would also like to add, I find it quite funny that northern and western conservatives bash southern conservatives. Sorry, but if it weren't for us, the entire COUNTRY would look like Detroit right now. :whatever:
Nah, I guess I am paranoid.
Stand by for refutation ---
In the meantime, please address Texas v. White.
-
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.
D6 DID provide you a link...to the US Constitution. Again, you're wrong. There is no way in HELL our forefathers would have entered into a union without the ability to leave if it didn't serve the best interests of the state. Now, show me the link that shows we CAN'T leave.
If you think I'm "bullying" you, fine. I'm not doing it as an Admin. I'm doing it as Rebel. I'm aware of the appearance and trust me, I'm fine with the dual-role of being Admin/Poster. I've done it for many years at NCAABBS. It's why I knew I could be a better Admin than Gator. You wanna go after me in full strength, go right ahead. You won't be banned for it. Please don't EVER think that when debating me. If I ever do that I'll request to be removed.
Snugs, San Francisco is a city, not a state.
I would also like to add, I find it quite funny that northern and western conservatives bash southern conservatives. Sorry, but if it weren't for us, the entire COUNTRY would look like Detroit right now. :whatever:
Not all of us northern conservatives do that Rebel.
-
Nah, I guess I am paranoid.
Stand by for refutation ---
In the meantime, please address Texas v. White.
I am. It's a long brief. When it comes to legal documentation, I don't rely on Wiki.
As for you being paranoid, don't be. You could not even IMAGINE the trash that's said to me at ncaabbs. As an Admin, I could easily end their life at ncaabbs right there, but it's not right. Again, why I knew I could be a better Admin than Gator. Oh, and I don't have some cutesy dumbass saying like "Why are you so Damn stupid". ::)
-
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.
D6 DID provide you a link...to the US Constitution. Again, you're wrong. There is no way in HELL our forefathers would have entered into a union without the ability to leave if it didn't serve the best interests of the state. Now, show me the link that shows we CAN'T leave.
If you think I'm "bullying" you, fine. I'm not doing it as an Admin. I'm doing it as Rebel. I'm aware of the appearance and trust me, I'm fine with the dual-role of being Admin/Poster. I've done it for many years at NCAABBS. It's why I knew I could be a better Admin than Gator. You wanna go after me in full strength, go right ahead. You won't be banned for it. Please don't EVER think that when debating me. If I ever do that I'll request to be removed.
Snugs, San Francisco is a city, not a state.
I would also like to add, I find it quite funny that northern and western conservatives bash southern conservatives. Sorry, but if it weren't for us, the entire COUNTRY would look like Detroit right now. :whatever:
Not all of us northern conservatives do that Rebel.
FWIIW, this isn't "Bashing" This is educating about real history, not the made-up history you Southrons tell each other to justify the insurrection.
Imagination isn't a Conservative value.
And also FWIIW, you won't find a more ardent supporter of the IX and X Amendments than I. Not that they mean anything today, but they should.
-
Nah, I guess I am paranoid.
Stand by for refutation ---
In the meantime, please address Texas v. White.
I am. It's a long brief. When it comes to legal documentation, I don't rely on Wiki.
As for you being paranoid, don't be. You could not even IMAGINE the trash that's said to me at ncaabbs. As an Admin, I could easily end their life at ncaabbs right there, but it's not right. Again, why I knew I could be a better Admin than Gator. Oh, and I don't have some cutesy dumbass saying like "Why are you so Damn stupid". ::)
You are right -- that was stupid on my part. My profound apologies.
You can summarize Texas v. White (I can in one sentence) -- I will accept your citations. Actually, this would be argumentation, not documentation per se. IOW where is the error?
-
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.
I challenge that it is moral to secede when you find yourself living under a government that commits the acts of a tyrant. Such a government that nullifies laws you pass (locally) so that you may live with your neighbors amicably. A government that uses its purse to coerce local legislatures into passing legislation favorable only to it. A government that seeks to limit the right of commerce. A government that refuses to listen to your redress. A government that actively spies against you, and garrisons it's enforcement agents near you. And finally, a government that declares you beyond it's protection and makes war against you. Under those circumstances, it would be moral to secede.
However, it is only appropriate to secede if it is moral, you stand a chance, and you can't leave. Because to secede usually means war, and it is immoral to engage in the slaughter of warfare to no possible good end.
-
You cannot simply leave a government because you don't like its policies. Look at the forum this thread is in. What a bunch of candy-assed faggots we watch every day. Listen to them howl about their stolen rights, lack of representation, excesses of law, etc etc etc.
So they say.
The fact of the matter is: they are fully represented and protected by the law. They are free to assemble, march, give speeches, pamphlet, petition, bring suit, vote, hold office...
They may lose elections repeatedly but that's not the same as lacking the natural rights of a born citizen. Just because they claim to be on the persecuted side doesn't ake it so. Ergo they have no right ot secede simply because they feel mistreated. If they were to move towards secession the government would have every right to detain, surveill and if need be compel their retention within the Union through armed force.
If they were truly stripped of their rights to assemble, march, give speeches, pamphlet, petition, bring suit, vote, hold office etc maybe then the case for armed rebellion could be made but by that time the government would be so far off course the arguments would be academic.
If the Chavez/Castro/Obama fellating DUmmies sought to secede would Bush be obligated to grant their demands or could he unleash the full might of the FBI, CIA, NSA and DoD?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I challenge that it is moral to secede when you find yourself living under a government that commits the acts of a tyrant. Such a government that nullifies laws you pass (locally) so that you may live with your neighbors amicably. A government that uses its purse to coerce local legislatures into passing legislation favorable only to it. A government that seeks to limit the right of commerce. A government that refuses to listen to your redress. A government that actively spies against you, and garrisons it's enforcement agents near you. And finally, a government that declares you beyond it's protection and makes war against you.
Circumstances that we are already dangerously close to IMO.
-
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!
-
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.
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
There should be no WOD. There should be no WOP
Huh?
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:thatsright: 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.
-
Yeah Freedumb, right. :whatever:
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
I can do so within a certainty. If The right would exist in the absence of government, and the right can does not interfere with anyone else's right, then I would argue these are rights extended to us by the creator and that we create governments as a way to protect them. Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness all fall into this category. Robbing a liquor store would deprive someone else of his property, therefore it is not a natural right.
The union, such as it was created, was meant to preserve liberty. If the union ceases, or has ceased, to preserve liberty and instead exists only to preserve itself then, since it no longer serves the purpose it was created and joined, states are able to choose to leave.
-
Does this mean I can't wear my t-shirt that says, "If can't you secede the first time, try again."? :-) :-)
Or would that just be a "Southron" girl not getting over it?
*Sorry, this thread needed lightening. Or cowbell. Or pie. Or cool whip.
-
If secession were legal DUmmies could claim themselves duly disaffected by the political process and secede and demand the federal government surrender all assets within their territory.
Succession IS legal, both individually and state by state. The federal government has well established procedure where by individual, disaffected DUmmies can "secede" from the Union (renounce their citizenship). The DUmmies problem is that they "think" that just because they've declared their dissatisfaction, and said they're taking their dollies and dishes and going home, that they can enforce that will on the rest of their state. Considering that I haven't seen a single - modern - secessionist movement with more than 18% of their state's population in support of it, they're either so full of shit their eyes are brown, or are planning on a redefinition of the word "Majority" worthy of the Russian Bolsheviks.
If I remember correctly, aren't the majority of Federal military (etc.) reservations built on LEASED lands? (i.e. 99-year leases) If that is the case, then a state intending to secede has the legal option of buying out or cancelling the lease with the US Government as part of their secession.