Is secession really legally impossible?

[Modbert]

How about if the majority of states voted to kick a state out, even if that state did not want to secede?

Would be entertaining if you could do that in every faucet of everyday life.

 

[ihopehefails]

I have a right to my U. S. citizenship. The state of New York does not have the right to secede and take that away from me.

What happens if a majority of voters think otherwise?

Then you would still be forcing the minority of the population to betray their country.

Sorry but tough shit.

 

[ihopehefails]

How about if the majority of states voted to kick a state out, even if that state did not want to secede?

That would be possible to do as well.

 

[ihopehefails]

How about if the majority of states voted to kick a state out, even if that state did not want to secede?

My first vote is for Texas. Then Alaska. And then we should annex Brazil and call it a day.

So you admit the union is dissolvable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law means nothing next to the rights of men.

I have a right to my U. S. citizenship. The state of New York does not have the right to secede and take that away from me.

What happens if a majority of voters think otherwise?

Constitutional rights are protected regardless of what the majority of any given state says.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It seems the larger reality is being patently ignored: Namely could any of the states make it on their own?

The answer is still no.

And if a chunk of states left to form a new nation, they'd be forced by the international community to accept a signifigant portion of the US debt, at which point a coalition of States would find itself in a worse position than it was under the Federal Government.

 

[ihopehefails]

I have a right to my U. S. citizenship. The state of New York does not have the right to secede and take that away from me.

What happens if a majority of voters think otherwise?

Constitutional rights are protected regardless of what the majority of any given state says.

Is secession threatening your right to be a citizen of two countries since it was already stated that it is possible to be a citizen of both country so your citizenship is still 'protected'.

 

[ihopehefails]

It seems the larger reality is being patently ignored: Namely could any of the states make it on their own?

The answer is still no.

And if a chunk of states left to form a new nation, they'd be forced by the international community to accept a signifigant portion of the US debt, at which point a coalition of States would find itself in a worse position than it was under the Federal Government.

It is ignored because it has nothing to do with the legal possibility of departure since the ability to survive on its own is not a of the amendment process itself. No other consideration for the passage of any amendment exist in article V other than 2/3 of the both house and senate and ratification by 3/4 of all states.

 

[Vast LWC]

How about if the majority of states voted to kick a state out, even if that state did not want to secede?

My first vote is for Texas. Then Alaska. And then we should annex Brazil and call it a day.

I vote we just kick out the Texans, and the Alaskans.

We'll keep the territory, thank you very much. Maybe we'll let illegal aliens move in.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It seems the larger reality is being patently ignored: Namely could any of the states make it on their own?

The answer is still no.

And if a chunk of states left to form a new nation, they'd be forced by the international community to accept a signifigant portion of the US debt, at which point a coalition of States would find itself in a worse position than it was under the Federal Government.

It is ignored because it has nothing to do with the legal possibility of departure since the ability to survive on its own is not a of the amendment process itself. No other consideration for the passage of any amendment exist in article V other than 2/3 of the both house and senate and ratification by 3/4 of all states.

It would never pass if the State leaving is looking at a complete and immediate failure. It would also never pass without some sort of mechanism for shifting a reasonable amount of the debt onto the departing state.

That may seem like points that are unrelated, but when push comes to shove those factors would influence the decision. Texans, for example, won't be so happy to leave if they learn they're taking part of the Federal Debt with them on the way out. Nor are they likely to want to leave if doing so leaves the State of Texas at the mercy of the EU or China when the bill collectors come calling.

 

[ihopehefails]

It seems the larger reality is being patently ignored: Namely could any of the states make it on their own?

The answer is still no.

And if a chunk of states left to form a new nation, they'd be forced by the international community to accept a signifigant portion of the US debt, at which point a coalition of States would find itself in a worse position than it was under the Federal Government.

It is ignored because it has nothing to do with the legal possibility of departure since the ability to survive on its own is not a of the amendment process itself. No other consideration for the passage of any amendment exist in article V other than 2/3 of the both house and senate and ratification by 3/4 of all states.

It would never pass if the State leaving is looking at a complete and immediate failure. It would also never pass without some sort of mechanism for shifting a reasonable amount of the debt onto the departing state.

That may seem like points that are unrelated, but when push comes to shove those factors would influence the decision. Texans, for example, won't be so happy to leave if they learn they're taking part of the Federal Debt with them on the way out. Nor are they likely to want to leave if doing so leaves the State of Texas at the mercy of the EU or China when the bill collectors come calling.

The ability or inability to survive on your own is completely irrelavant to the amendment process since it does not make the act unconstitutional. It may enter into the debate but those factors doesn't make it unconstitutional to do so.

 

[Political Junky]

Let Texas secede and be reabsorbed into Mexico.

 

[Againsheila]

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

The Declaration of Independence was written before the constitution and it's THAT which gives us not just the right, but the duty to get rid of an unjust government.

 

[Againsheila]

It seems the larger reality is being patently ignored: Namely could any of the states make it on their own?

The answer is still no.

And if a chunk of states left to form a new nation, they'd be forced by the international community to accept a signifigant portion of the US debt, at which point a coalition of States would find itself in a worse position than it was under the Federal Government.

It is ignored because it has nothing to do with the legal possibility of departure since the ability to survive on its own is not a of the amendment process itself. No other consideration for the passage of any amendment exist in article V other than 2/3 of the both house and senate and ratification by 3/4 of all states.

It would never pass if the State leaving is looking at a complete and immediate failure. It would also never pass without some sort of mechanism for shifting a reasonable amount of the debt onto the departing state.

That may seem like points that are unrelated, but when push comes to shove those factors would influence the decision. Texans, for example, won't be so happy to leave if they learn they're taking part of the Federal Debt with them on the way out. Nor are they likely to want to leave if doing so leaves the State of Texas at the mercy of the EU or China when the bill collectors come calling.

I wasn't in favor of the bailout, I don't see why I should have to pay the bill. Any state that leaves should list that in their reason for secession and they should refuse to pay any bill presented to them by the union. All senators who voted for it, in the state that secedes, should be shot immediately for treason to their state.

 

[Againsheila]

Let Texas secede and be reabsorbed into Mexico.

Mexico couldn't keep it the first time around, do you really think they'd be able to keep it now?

 

[hvactec]

Interposition, Nullification and Secession on Freedom Watch - Judge talks to Lew Rockwell
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgpbDFNAAbU]YouTube - Interposition, Nullification and Secession on Freedom Watch - Judge talks to Lew Rockwell[/ame]

 

[2Parties]

Almost every law contradicts another law. Do you think courts and governments are going to just let people who they leach off of stop paying taxes and stop following their laws?

Laws are contradictory for a reason and it's not for your good (unless you are a politician or in cahoots with one)...

 

[NYcarbineer]

What happens if a majority of voters think otherwise?

Constitutional rights are protected regardless of what the majority of any given state says.

Is secession threatening your right to be a citizen of two countries since it was already stated that it is possible to be a citizen of both country so your citizenship is still 'protected'.

And if my new 'country' passes laws that conflict with the Constitution of the United States, am i obligated to obey them?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Constitutional rights are protected regardless of what the majority of any given state says.

Is secession threatening your right to be a citizen of two countries since it was already stated that it is possible to be a citizen of both country so your citizenship is still 'protected'.

And if my new 'country' passes laws that conflict with the Constitution of the United States, am i obligated to obey them?

Are you obliged to follow the laws now?

You could do like everyone else and either try to change to the laws.


OR you could move to the US.


Or you could, being a loyalist, move to the US at the time cessation is declared.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is secession threatening your right to be a citizen of two countries since it was already stated that it is possible to be a citizen of both country so your citizenship is still 'protected'.

And if my new 'country' passes laws that conflict with the Constitution of the United States, am i obligated to obey them?

Are you obliged to follow the laws now?

You could do like everyone else and either try to change to the laws.


OR you could move to the US.


Or you could, being a loyalist, move to the US at the time cessation is declared.

I'm a US citizen living on US soil. I am under the protection of the US military in that regard, including protection from a foreign country annexing my property. There is NO constitutional process by which a foreign country can transform my property into foreign soil.