'Is Secession Legal?'

[Polk]

[]
Actually it is the abuse of power at the federal level which makes secession so attractive.
As there is nothing in the constitution to BAR secession, it is constitutionally legal despite what the federal government would like to claim; despite the attempt by the Supreme court to modify the Constitution by their ruling in White vs Texas.

The Supremacy clause makes secession illegal. A state is prohibited from making laws that conflict with federal law; it would be impossible to secede without doing so.

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

Your argument assumes that states have the legal authority to determine what is and is not constitutional. They don't.

 

[Liability]

The Supremacy clause makes secession illegal. A state is prohibited from making laws that conflict with federal law; it would be impossible to secede without doing so.

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

Your argument assumes that states have the legal authority to determine what is and is not constitutional. They don't.

Your attempt at a rebuttal is wrong since YOU incorrectly assume, as a "fact," that States cannot determine whether a Federal Act violates the Constitution.

Of course they can.

And should.

 

[Polk]

Article III would beg to differ.

 

[Liability]

Article III would beg to differ.

No. It wouldn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

Your argument assumes that states have the legal authority to determine what is and is not constitutional. They don't.

Your attempt at a rebuttal is wrong since YOU incorrectly assume, as a "fact," that States cannot determine whether a Federal Act violates the Constitution.

Of course they can.

And should.

Then show me how a State makes or changes constitutional law. And show me how it does so to constitutionally secede, keeping in mind that secession requires violating innumerable federal laws.

Show me for example how the citizens of a state, in the act of secession, could legally stop paying federal taxes.

 

[Liability]

Your argument assumes that states have the legal authority to determine what is and is not constitutional. They don't.

Your attempt at a rebuttal is wrong since YOU incorrectly assume, as a "fact," that States cannot determine whether a Federal Act violates the Constitution.

Of course they can.

And should.

Then show me how a State makes or changes constitutional law. And show me how it does so to constitutionally secede, keeping in mind that secession requires violating innumerable federal laws.

Show me for example how the citizens of a state, in the act of secession, could legally stop paying federal taxes.

Somebody once asked Steve Martin a similar question. "Steve, how do I become a millionaire and never pay any taxes?"

His reply? (And I paraphrase), "first. Make a million dollars. Then, don't pay ANY taxes!"

"But Steve, won't I go to jail?"

Steve: "Two little words we so often forget: 'EXCUUUUUUSSSSEEEE MEEEEEEEEE!'"

The notion is not all that silly, however.

Here's just one example: If the Feds pass a law that requires that the States pay more money than they can afford to attend to some "issue" of urgent significance supposedly to the busybodies in Congress, but the legislation doesn't provide to the States the money to PAY for the costs, what would prevent a State from saying, "Fuck off" to Congress?

Do you imagine President Obama would send in the troops?

 

[Charles Stucker]

We are talking Texans here. Not patriotic Texans, but secessionist who would willingly withdraw from the greatest country on earth.

If the US were still the greatest country on Earth you might not sound so ignorant. As it is the Patriotic Texans are the ones who would like to see a return to the Constitutional balance between the states and the federal government. It is just treasonous scum Yankees who want to keep big government going.

We have us an honest to god, US hating traitor. Glad to see that most honorable Texans would be repulsed by your opinion of the greatest country on earth.

Which country do you prefer Comrade Stucker? Need I ask?

The sole measure of greatness is LIBERTY a fact which either escapes you because you are a drooling idiot or which you ignore because you prefer tyranny. Although you are certainly incapable of understanding, the US has steadily lost freedom since FDR. Both parties are equally guilty of removing freedoms from citizens, though the latest outrage from Obama (bankrupt the country, and hence impoverish all the people to the point of economic slavery through the national health program) certainly ranks with Socialist Security as a Ponzi scheme meant to enslave Americans.
The Country I prefer is the FREE USA, not the pale imitation which exists today.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Its inevitable, the union will degenerate into smaller pieces the USA will cease to exist.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Imagine the joy the mexicans would have if Texas really did leave the united states.......how fun would that be to see how fast Mexico would come up, delcare war on Texas and take it back.

How fucking great would that be.

Keep in mind most Texans love the USA and would choose to remain a US Citizen. However, those traitorous Texans who would willingly abandon their country just because they lost an election would be easy pickings for the Mexicans.

Texas left Mexico because Mexico abolished slavery.

Texas left the Union over slavery.

The United States elects a black president, Texans start spouting off about seceding again.

...I seem to detect a pattern there.

Horseshit.
Texas left Mexico because they had a bunch of land hungry Americans come over shortly after Mexico gained independence from Spain. As I recall it was "The Galveston Land Trading Corporation" (or something akin) that had investors like Bowie who saw the huge profit potential in getting Texas away from Mexico.
American Ambassadors (ever head of Poinsettia) worked to undermine the Mexican government in attempts to get land concessions, which led to much civil unrest in the fledgling nation.

Wait, why am I wasting time with facts, you don't want facts, you want to keep your ignorant opinions, so I'll be brief.
You are absolutely mistaken.
I have argued for the Right of states to seceded since before Obama's election.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Wow, check it out, we have an honest to goodness Traitor right here on USMB.

Not just one of those rhetorical traitors, which people on each end of the political spectrum are constantly calling each other, but the real McCoy.

Sure, wanting a return to the CONSTITUTION makes one a traitor. Wait no, the scum who overthrew the constitution are traitors. Like the members of Vast Left Wing Conspiracies. Those are the traitors.

There has not been a constitutional government during my entire life .
we are governed by NGO's and bureaucracies.
The states dont represent state rights , They vie for crumbs from other people tables .

The whole system of check and balances is out of control.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow, check it out, we have an honest to goodness Traitor right here on USMB.

Not just one of those rhetorical traitors, which people on each end of the political spectrum are constantly calling each other, but the real McCoy.

Sure, wanting a return to the CONSTITUTION makes one a traitor. Wait no, the scum who overthrew the constitution are traitors. Like the members of Vast Left Wing Conspiracies. Those are the traitors.

If the US were still the greatest country on Earth you might not sound so ignorant. As it is the Patriotic Texans are the ones who would like to see a return to the Constitutional balance between the states and the federal government. It is just treasonous scum Yankees who want to keep big government going.

We have us an honest to god, US hating traitor. Glad to see that most honorable Texans would be repulsed by your opinion of the greatest country on earth.

Which country do you prefer Comrade Stucker? Need I ask?

Do you not hate the US govt ? If you don't, you must be an idiot.
People don't hate " America and Americans"
They hate your piece of shit, corrupt, murderous, government and the corporations they are the whores for.

Hey, whatever crazy, conspiracy-theory rationalization for treason that helps you get through the day I guess.

Doesn't change the fact that it's pure, unadulterated treason though.

The southern states had the same "States Rights" rationalizations when they wanted the freedom to own slaves. And they were all traitors too.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Wow, check it out, we have an honest to goodness Traitor right here on USMB.

Not just one of those rhetorical traitors, which people on each end of the political spectrum are constantly calling each other, but the real McCoy.

Sure, wanting a return to the CONSTITUTION makes one a traitor. Wait no, the scum who overthrew the constitution are traitors. Like the members of Vast Left Wing Conspiracies. Those are the traitors.

We have us an honest to god, US hating traitor. Glad to see that most honorable Texans would be repulsed by your opinion of the greatest country on earth.

Which country do you prefer Comrade Stucker? Need I ask?

Do you not hate the US govt ? If you don't, you must be an idiot.
People don't hate " America and Americans"
They hate your piece of shit, corrupt, murderous, government and the corporations they are the whores for.

Hey, whatever crazy, conspiracy-theory rationalization for treason that helps you get through the day I guess.

Doesn't change the fact that it's pure, unadulterated treason though.

The southern states had the same "States Rights" rationalizations when they wanted the freedom to own slaves. And they were all traitors too.

How original - post two different people together to support your autocratic desire to suppress freedom of speech.
Along with any other freedom.
By calling an insistence on the need for liberty "treason"
Way to go you left leaning Stalinist.

 

[Vast LWC]

How original - post two different people together to support your autocratic desire to suppress freedom of speech.
Along with any other freedom.
By calling an insistence on the need for liberty "treason"
Way to go you left leaning Stalinist.

I was posting the same response to 2 different posts. Guess you didn't get that part.

You were both advocating treason, and making lame rationalizations for same.

What rights, specifically, do you feel have been taken away from you personally in the recent past, that you feel are a rationalization for treason?

Have you been wrongfully imprisoned? Has someone in your family been wrongfully imprisoned?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind most Texans love the USA and would choose to remain a US Citizen. However, those traitorous Texans who would willingly abandon their country just because they lost an election would be easy pickings for the Mexicans.

Texas left Mexico because Mexico abolished slavery.

Texas left the Union over slavery.

The United States elects a black president, Texans start spouting off about seceding again.

...I seem to detect a pattern there.

Horseshit.
Texas left Mexico because they had a bunch of land hungry Americans come over shortly after Mexico gained independence from Spain. As I recall it was "The Galveston Land Trading Corporation" (or something akin) that had investors like Bowie who saw the huge profit potential in getting Texas away from Mexico.
American Ambassadors (ever head of Poinsettia) worked to undermine the Mexican government in attempts to get land concessions, which led to much civil unrest in the fledgling nation.

Wait, why am I wasting time with facts, you don't want facts, you want to keep your ignorant opinions, so I'll be brief.
You are absolutely mistaken.
I have argued for the Right of states to seceded since before Obama's election.

You can piss drivel all you want but that pumpkin isn't turning into a stagecoach anytime soon.

Why are people so intent on trying to invent a myth that the South wasn't willing to fight to keep their slaves? Next they'll be telling us that Americans weren't willing to fight to steal land from the Indians.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So it did fly over your head

or you are just back to being dishonest about recognizing the undeniable import of the highlighted words.

Either way, it kinda figures.

The highlighted words are irrelevant to my point.

Does anyone here want to make Lardbelly's argument in a concise coherent manner? He seems incapable.

LOL.

Highlighting only the fact that you are quite dense.

I knew it would sail over your head.

If the STATES and the people got together to form a Federal government and did so only upon certain conditions, then it should NOT come as a surprise that the Federal Government is obliged to HONOR those conditions for the agreement to remain valid.

Now, having formed a FEDERAL Government, that government having been formed FOR a reason, it also made sense to grant certain powers and authorities TO that Federal Government. Part and parcel of that was a grudging recognition that on those matters and in those areas where the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government, the Federally passed laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION would be the supreme law of the land. (That only means that if Connecticut or some other State or States had a contrary law or treaty, the Federal law would prevail.)

BUT, no such nominal "law" passed by the Federal Government would be the SUPREME law of the land if it failed to be made under the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT. [The whole premise of Judicial Review is founded on the recognition that a law not made in conformity to the mandates of the Constitution and which violates the Constitution is void "ab initio" -- meaning it is not a law at all and never was.]

If the Federal Government went further still, in fact, and refused to abide by the limitations imposed on it in the Constitution, then the implication is that the States could react by withdrawing their agreement to be part of the Federal Government.

Why this is so very difficult for you liberal nimrods to grasp is a serious concern. The concept of "Federalism" is actually part of the delicate checks and blances we carefully crafted at the Founding.

None of that justifies secession. But you're free to leave.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I was posting the same response to 2 different posts. Guess you didn't get that part.

Actually I understood exactly what you intended. You wanted everyone to conflate my defense of the constitution with another posters words of hatred for America.

You were both advocating treason, and making lame rationalizations for same.

No I am advocating Liberty and the Constitution two ideals which are completely at odds with your totalitarian mindset.

 

[Vanquish]

I swear people think they can just type freedom and liberty and constitution instead of making an actually sound argument. Shouting those words dont make you a patriot and therefore better than anyone else...even though you seem to want to delude yourself into thinking so.

W

T

F

States aren't the final arbiter of constitutionality by ANY stretch of the imagination. States have Attorney Generals who offer opinions on legal topics in addition to upholding state constitutions. States also have their own supreme courts. If a state has an opinion, a justiciable case or controversy has to arise...then it moves up the judicial track. Eventually it jumps from state-level courts to federal-level courts and of course, as I hope we all know to the Supreme Court. That's how American law is determined. States don't just decide..."hey! I dont want to pay that, I'm not going to!"

What's amazing is what I typed should be known by your average high-school student.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Eventually it jumps from state-level courts to federal-level courts and of course, as I hope we all know to the Supreme Court. That's how American law is determined.

By your logic the Supreme court could decide the First Amendment does not include the right to state your opinions and that doing so could be tried as treason, which is what some posters here are suggesting. Perhaps what we need is a new case brought before the court relevant to the secession of the states in 1861 and then we could have that freedom, of states to secede, returned. I say returned because before Lincoln and the ACW it was generally accepted that the states could secede, and only in the immediate aftermath did the court rule otherwise. A politicized court with no concern for the Constitution.

A different case might be brought that the initial acceptance of Texas as a sate was unconstitutional and then Texas would be an independent country once more as it could not be legally counted as part of the USA.

 

[Vanquish]

By my logic...lol. Well I am a lawyer who works federal and state cases every day, so I think I know the system.

And as for your example...you know, the Supreme Court could very well interpret the Constitution in a completely insane way. We have a mechanism for fixing that. It's called legislation. See Congress can amend the constitution or pass a law that clearly sets out what they want. The less interpretation necessary, the less the Sup Ct can mess it up.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law as written/enacted...but new laws may be enacted. Of course those have to be Constitutional. See the circle of checks and balances? States don't get to decide for themselves. In fact, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over controversies between states!

 

[beowolfe]

Whether it is legal or not, Secession in this day and age is not technically possible. Too many functions are performed at the federal level to allow states to pull away and still function idependently. It would be the equivalent of cutting off your head

Actually it is the abuse of power at the federal level which makes secession so attractive.
As there is nothing in the constitution to BAR secession, it is constitutionally legal despite what the federal government would like to claim; despite the attempt by the Supreme court to modify the Constitution by their ruling in White vs Texas.
What would a state truly need to do if they seceded?
They could let all the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients go over to the US side of their border.
They would have little need of a military as the only true threat would be the US and the US is currently heavily committed to other theaters. This is not the 19th century when all the power of the Army was focused on the home front.
And of course they would not have any Federal Debt.
Unless their state currently is in debt at the state level.

Good thing Texas has a balanced budget and a surplus.
We even had that during the oil glut of the mid 80's.
Texas conservatism must be doing something right.

It has zero to do with Texas conservatism or Texas liberalism. It has everything to do with the Texas constitution (as does a lot of other states) requiring the legislature to balance the budget.