It’s Constitutional

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt;6430368

You may want to actually get to know the posters here. Making broad sweeping statements usually results in getting it wrong.

To RetiredGySgt: Written responses tell me more than I want to know. The things learned about a person from their written words is more accurate than learning about them by talking to them face to face because the written word can be analyzed; whereas, the spoken word is usually heard once or twice, and is misinterpreted more often than not. Think about the old parlor game. Whisper something to a person; then have that person whisper it to the next person and so on. By the time the last person in the room gets it there is no resemblance to the original statement. Had you passed a note from person to person everybody would have gotten the same words.

RetiredGySgt;6430368

I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Though I have no problem with fully automatic weapons being registered.

I have my ammo and weapons ready in case a need arises to resist.

To RetiredGySgt: Ready to resist what? For the sake of discussion let’s say 25 states secede without the federal government’s approval. Let’s further say that the US military remains neutral.

In a speech on July 2, 2008 then-Senator Obama called for a civilian national security force:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama speech on civilian security force - YouTube

Hussein’s para-military force found its way into the healthcare bill —— renamed the Ready Reserve Corps.

At the same time Hussein & Company work day and night to disarm law-abiding Americans they would use TAX dollars to train and arm a civilian army —— an army loyal to the Socialist agenda —— not loyal to the country, and certainly not loyal to the federal government if it begins to move away from collectivism.

NOTE: As we speak Hussein is determined to cripple the military in the budget battle. Republicans should begin by taking the Ready Reserve Corps out of Hillarycare II if they cannot repeal the whole damn thing.

Hussein and Democrats put the Ready Reserve Corps in the healthcare bill well-knowing secession means that National Guard militia units in seceding states would transfer their allegiance from the federal government to their home state. Hussein & Company knew they could not “. . . rely on our military. . .” to defend the Communist agenda; hence, inserting and disguising a preemptive strike in the healthcare bill before secession became a topic.

A preemptive strike is not as far-fetched as it appears. Years ago, Socialists had to know that violent revolution, or peaceful secession, were inevitable. Planning for either eventuality as the tipping point drew near was logical.

Realistically, a majority of men and women serving in state militias, and in the active armed services for that matter, cannot be relied upon to kill their fellow Americans over peaceful, and constitutional, secession. Now, ask yourself this:

Did Hussein want to achieve HIS national security objectives with a parasite army so they could fight for the Socialist agenda, or fight for the Right of secession, or remain neutral? I think everybody knows the answer.

So are you ready to resist, or assist, Hussein’s parasite army if they try to stop peaceful secession?

RetiredGySgt;6430368

But claiming a State can freely leave the Union is a lie and a foolish statement. It ignores the law and reality.

To RetiredGySgt: Exactly which law is that? Please do not cite Texas v White. The SCOTUS never decided secession in Texas v. White anymore than it settled presidential eligibility in Plessy v. Ferguson. There is no law prohibiting secession until the Constitution is amended saying just that. If prohibiting secession is so settled amending the Constitution should be a simple matter. Apparently, saying secession is prohibited serves just as well.

And do not confuse High Court decisions like Roe v. Wade with secession. Prohibiting secession takes a Right away from states; whereas, Roe v. Wade supposedly gave a Right to the infanticide crowd.

Your failure to understand how our Government and Country works does not negate the fact what I said is true. It is ILLEGAL for a State to leave the Union. EXCEPT with consent of Congress. Failing consent the State or States leaving would need one of two things to happen to be successful. One would be the US does not put down the insurrection. The second would be to militarily defeat the US.

If States chose to leave the Union I would decide based on their position which to join. I am to old and medically unfit to serve in the military. But I would still help the side I chose.

I believe that unless it is clear case of treason or a major event the military would shatter in a civil war. Some would defect, some would stay loyal to the US Government depending on the orders and plans for said insurrection.

Further I doubt any "civilian" force Obama created would fair any differently. The lazy and the spoiled are not going to join ANY Army. Nor are they going to arm themselves and buy enough ammunition to be a threat.

 

[Toro]

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator , you don't like their decision? To damn bad. I don't much like roe vs wade, but it is the law of the land.

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

Justice Scalia is a liberal RINO who hates freedom.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you mean current law!! Scalia and Thomas don't care much about current law just about what the Declaration and Constitution say.

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

Justice Scalia is a liberal RINO who hates freedom.

yes dear how cute, but do you have a reason or are you just being cute.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It is ILLEGAL for a State to leave the Union.

so what?? It was illegal for us to leave the British Empire. The issue is whether it is right. IF you value freedom then it is right in light of our founding principles. This is why Jefferson said we should revolt every 20 years.

 

[paperview]

what freedom do we really have if we cant secede?? We didn't sign declaration?? or agree to Constitution did we??

Huh?

what freedom do we really have if we cant secede?? We didn't sign declaration?? or agree to Constitution did we??[/

It didn't make sense the first time. Repeating it a second times doesn't make it any better.

 

[paperview]

Here's the facts. NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution, meaning there would have been NO constitution, unless their right to leave said union at their discretion was allowed, and a right granted to one state, in this case the right to secede, is granted to all states by the Constitution.
...

That's a pile of rubbish.

They ratified it with no conditions or proposed Amendments.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years." A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot's Debates: Convention of New York, July 23, 1788

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."​

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity. Move over, Philadelphia. New York, too, deserves credit this week as Americans commemorate our Constitution."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar | Yale Law School

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is ILLEGAL for a State to leave the Union.

so what?? It was illegal for us to leave the British Empire. The issue is whether it is right. IF you value freedom then it is right in light of our founding principles. This is why Jefferson said we should revolt every 20 years.

Jefferson said NO SUCH thing. But keep claiming he did you dumb ass.

Once again BY LAW and BY THE CONSTITUTION, a State may not leave the Union except with approval from Congress. So unless you support armed rebellion you aren't going to get a State to leave any time soon.

 

[Flanders]

Further I doubt any "civilian" force Obama created would fair any differently. The lazy and the spoiled are not going to join ANY Army. Nor are they going to arm themselves and buy enough ammunition to be a threat.

To RetiredGySgt: Funny you should mention ammunition specifically:

The DHS’ decision back in March to purchase of 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage prompted questions as to why the federal agency required such powerful bullets and in such large quantities merely for training purposes.

This was followed up by a more recent order for a further 750 million rounds of assorted ammunition, including bullets that can penetrate walls.

DHS Classifies New Ammo Purchases Following Controversy

» DHS Classifies New Ammo Purchases Following Controversy Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

As to the rest of your response —— believe what you will. There’s no point in going around and around.

Let me close out on a light note with a little advice from the Great B.G. doing the vocal:

Benny Goodman And His Band - Gotta Be This Or That - YouTube

 

[Toro]

Justice Scalia has said states have no right to secede.

Justice Scalia is a liberal RINO who hates freedom.

yes dear how cute, but do you have a reason or are you just being cute.

Clearly, he's a liberal who hates America because he thinks they country shouldn't be blown apart.

The only True Patriots are those who support The Confederacy.

 

[idb]

Uh oh!

The petition for Texas to go off and become its own country already has more than 60,000 signatures. Impressive. But in a twist, the capital city of Austin has filed a petition to secede from Texas and remain part of the Union should that happen. This is officially getting out of hand. The petition states it is "entirely feasible for Austin to operate as its own state," and adds that remaining in the Union "would protect [its] citizens' standard of living."

Austin files petition to secede from Texas

 

[jtpr312]

Here's the facts. NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution, meaning there would have been NO constitution, unless their right to leave said union at their discretion was allowed, and a right granted to one state, in this case the right to secede, is granted to all states by the Constitution.
...

That's a pile of rubbish.

They ratified it with no conditions or proposed Amendments.

The direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:
"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years." A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

Elliot's Debates: Convention of New York, July 23, 1788

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."​

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity. Move over, Philadelphia. New York, too, deserves credit this week as Americans commemorate our Constitution."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar | Yale Law School

Wrong
The convention then appointed a committee of five to prepare the form of ratification. This "engrossed" ratification was read before the convention and accepted. On June 26, the engrossed Form of Ratification was read again, signed by President Edmund Pendleton, and transmitted to the Confederation Congress. The opening reads like this:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes ...
The committee of five that wrote the ratification was Edmund Randolph, George Nicholas, James Madison, John Marshall, and Francis Corbin -- all of them Federalists and Madison and Randolph, of course, members of the Constitutional Convention that had met in Philadelphia in 1787.


Next we turn to the United States Constitution, the governing document that superseded the Articles of Confederation after it was ratified in 1788. While it is true that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit or allow secession – “the wording of the Constitution gives neither the believers in the right of secession nor the advocates of a perpetual union a case so decisive that all reasonable persons are bound to accept it” [Kenneth M. Stampp, “The Concept of a Perpetual Union,” The Journal of American History, Vol.65, No.1 (June, 1978): 12.] - there are some parts of that document that have been used to either justify or negate the right of secession.
Opponents of secession point to its preamble, with its declaration of, “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” as proof that the Union was a creation of the American people in their totality, not an amalgam of individual states. In fact, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts makes this very point in a speech in 1833 that has since been entitled, “The Constitution Not a Compact Between Sovereign States.” However, Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. notes that Webster’s “exegesis of the Constitution’s preamble is faulty. In fact, the Constitution as originally drafted did say ‘We, the States.’ This wording was removed for practical reasons by the committee on style. The fact that this textual change was unanimously accepted proves it could not have been intended to alter the nature of the Union. Had the new text really meant what Webster later claimed it did, vocal and lengthy debate would have ensued.” [Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Washington, D.C.: Regnery]

Of course, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution stands as a towering monument to the concepts of states’ rights – the doctrine that states are ultimately sovereign in their affairs. Some would argue that upon states entering the Union, the federal government becomes sovereign, but historically this has been refuted both vehemently and often. The existence of the Tenth Amendment – “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.” – is ipso facto proof that the concept of state sovereignty was not abandoned by the Founding Fathers (especially by the group known as the Anti-Federalists). In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed that the Tenth Amendment “was the cornerstone of the entire Constitution.” [Ibid. 26]

Another aspect of the Constitution that strongly supports secession is the state ratification debates of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. If entry into the Union somehow meant a diminution of state sovereignty, with each state becoming an indivisible part of a larger whole, you wouldn’t know it by the conditions stipulated by these states effective upon their entry into the Union. As per Professor Woods, “So concerned were Virginians about the possibility that the new Union would infringe upon their rights of self-government that upon ratification of the Constitution, Virginia declared that it reserved the right to secede from the Union…evidence from Virginia’s ratifying convention makes clear that the delegates believed they were entering a voluntary compact [italics added] among states rather than yielding their sovereignty to an all-powerful national government. New York and Rhode Island would include similar clauses in their own acts of ratification.” [Ibid. 18]

There are many other historical sources, but the Declaration by Virginia says it all.
The Legality of Secession in the United Stateshttp://http://www.historyvortex.org/LegalitySecession.html

 

[paperview]

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

 

[paperview]

 

[Flanders]

To paperview: See #46 permalink.

 

[paperview]

Why would I need to read it twice?

It's a legit letter and Scalia (god help me for saying this) is right.

 

[jtpr312]

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

 

[jillian]

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

 

[paperview]

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people.
...

1. Yes it did.

2. No, the rebels did not legally secede.

3. The South fired the first shots.

4. "hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens" Oh God. The South loved the constitution so much they trashed the First Amendment and BANNED anti-slavery speech and prohibited the mails and newspapers from carrying any tracts or speech that was abolitionist in nature. They even put a GAG order on those filing petitions to Congress decades earlier, so slavery couldn't even be discussed in Congress. Yeah, that's Constitution loving...

Not the least of which their entire philosophy on their way of life was centered around OWNING human beings, not allowing some four million out of their total nine million population from having ANY rights, no representation, and even denied citizenship. Freedom-loving my ass.

Neo-confederates are such pompous, lying blowhards.

 

[paperview]

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people. Virginia NEVER excluded their right to secede when they ratified, neither did NY or RI. There was NO denial of the right to secede prior to their ratification and people much smarter than either you or I, people who actually attended the conventions, wrote and signed the Constitution and wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence disagree with your pov.

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

Hell, even the slaveholder and scumbucket US Supreme Court Justice Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision that denied citizenship to the entire black race in this country -- said secession was illegal.

 

[jillian]

Wrong.

It was rejected. Virginia or NY could have made all the proposals they wanted, they were rejected. Their acceptance as part of the compact was not conditional on their list of particulars.

That was reaffirmed by the JULY NY FINAL vote for ratification.

We also know, when secession was tried - it failed. Badly.

Deal with it.

It didn't "fail". The states legally seceded from the union, as was their Constitutional right, at which time the federal govt, illegally and immorally, invaded the Soveriegn state of Virginia and proceeded to murder hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens so as to impose oppressive federal control over a free people.
...

1. Yes it did.

2. No, the rebels did not legally secede.

3. The South fired the first shots.

4. "hundreds of thousands of loyal, freedom loving, Constituion believing American Citizens" Oh God. The South loved the constitution so much they trashed the First Amendment and BANNED anti-slavery speech and prohibited the mails and newspapers from carrying any tracts or speech that was abolitionist in nature. They even put a GAG order on those filing petitions to Congress decades earlier, so slavery couldn't even be discussed in Congress. Yeah, that's Constitution loving...

Not the least of which their entire philosophy on their way of life was centered around OWNING human beings, not allowing some four million out of their total nine million population from having ANY rights, no representation, and even denied citizenship. Freedom-loving my ass.

Neo-confederates are such pompous, lying blowhards.

They hate the constitution and the constraints it puts on their ability to discriminate and to subjugate women.... and enact theocratic laws.

constitution loving?