Break Away

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by BrianH, Apr 11, 2008.

  1. BrianH
    Offline

    BrianH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,520
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +238
    I've been curious about something in the last few years. I'm not planning anything, but have been curious regardless.

    As far as legalities go, could states, legally succeed from the Union. Since annexation was always "voluntary." And that states were considerered "free and independent states."? Is there anything stated that says the states cannot succeed? I could reserach this on my own, but I figured just asking would generate discussion.
     
  2. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,705
    Thanks Received:
    7,230
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,756
    For the record, the word is secede, not succeed, but I knew what you meant. ;)

    And the answer is no, they can't.
     
  3. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    Not since the Civil War.
    After the Civil War, the United States adopted the 14th Amendment, which included a definition of national citizenship.
     
  4. Abelian Sea
    Offline

    Abelian Sea o_O

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    659
    Thanks Received:
    177
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +177
    They can sure try.

    Didn't work out so well last time, though.

    Damn uppity states, thinkin' they all "free and independent" an' shit. Don't they know this place is a closed shop? You want to operate between Canada and Mexico, you got to be in the union. And I really mean "got to."

    Legality? Eh. That can be changed/clarified to reflect this reality.


    (edit: not that I'm bitter about the War of Northern Aggression or anything, and it is sure nice having a country as wealthy and powerful as unity has enabled this one to be, but there is no doubt that the Fed is really in charge here and it will suppercede your laws and, if necessary, burn down your cities if you cross it on something it really cares about)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. BrianH
    Offline

    BrianH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,520
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +238
    oops...that was a mispelled doosey. Sorry. LOL...I must have had success on the brain. LOL
     
  6. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    The Civil War settled the issue and I believe in 1869 the SUpreme Court also ruled that States have no right to leave the Union with out the permission of the Majority.

    Except the original 13 and Tennessee, Kentucky and I think Alabama every State has been made from land the Government OWNED. They may have voted to join but they can not leave without permission. Those three states were made from land given to the Federal Government by the States.
     
  7. BrianH
    Offline

    BrianH Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,520
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +238
    YEah, some people still boast that Texas can secede , and I tell them the same thing. Well, we tried in 1861, and that didn't seem to work out for us.
     
  8. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    Texas joined also so might have some argument however part of the deal was a forgiveness of huge debts by Texas with the US.

    Once the Constitution was ratified it became moot, a majority is needed to leave just like a majority is needed to join. The Civil War settled the issue legally. Of course that does not mean a new Civil War could not happen and change the landscape.
     
  9. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Section 1 was written for former slave to ensure citizenship. It had nothing to do with secession. Section 3 dealt rebellious individuals serving in government, but I have read no "laws" denying the States the right to secede. Just obscure court decisions. A state can secede, but said state better be ready to face the consequences.

    In all actuality, Lincoln was suspect constitutionally in raising an army. He preserved the Union and did so with Just cause, but most constitutional scholars will tend to take the side of the South legally, but the North morally. Either way the war was bound to happen as both sides had pros and cons to their cases.
     
  10. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    Upon rereading this thread, I remember (promted by the Gunny) a case we read in Constitutional Law in my frst year. I looked up the case that the Gunny refered to it was Texas vs. White. Court's decision:

    This was in 1869 and I have heard legal scholars tear ths apart and is widely considered to be full of holes. Take it as you want, but a constitution did not stop the first Civil War, and it probably wouldn't stop a second one, should it arise. The legality issue could go either way.
     

Share This Page