Seceding from the Union?

[jla1178]

How exactly would we divide the military?

The red states can get them every other weekend.

 

[nukeman]

Do you actually know which states have the highest GSPs, have the lowest crime, the highest standards of living, and which pay the most Federal incomes taxes in, but which also get the least back from the Feds?

The blue States.]

What states have the lowest crime rates again? I am not talking about isolated cities here but the whole freaking state. Do you honestly believe that because some are stupid enough to pay huge amounts of money for goods, they some how have a higher standard of living? Yes they do pay higher income taxes but that is due to them having to be payed more for that higher standard of living you think you have...

Believe me, if the USA divided into Red and Blue states, the Red states would come out of it a lot worse off than they are currently.

You guys in the Red states would get most of our military bases, most of our military retired, most of the least educated and poorest populations, and you'd have most of the minorities and illegal immigrants, too.

You would corner the market on ocra and grits, though, if that makes ya'll feel any better about things.]The blue states would get the vast majority of world class universities, nobel prize winners, high tech industries, and the highest paid and best educated populations. We'd have most of the Jews, too, thank God!

Do you honestly believe that. you do realize that almost ALL of your food is grown in Red States. You say least educated!!! How so. In Indiana alone you have Notre Dame, Rose Hulman, Indiana State university, and Purdue university. All of wich put out the best engineers, doctors, and lawyers in the US. Yet you belittle them. You are a peice of work. As for the illegal problem let me tell you, if it was up to the red states and not the bleeding heart leberals than you wouldn't have a problem, they would all be sent packing. By the way they are mostly in the southwest US. As for the military MOST of your military people come from those red states you have such little regard for.

We'd also have the market cornered on chablis and brie

. Keep it. Brie isn't all its cracked up to be.... I for one will take a nice chiraz anyday.....

I think we're all better off with 50 states even if we can't stand one another.

Think of it as a marriage of inconvenience.

One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (who can afford it)

This I agree with 100%....

 

[Silence]

Out of curiousity, why would poor people choose to live in a Red State when they can get everything handed to them by living in a blue state?

You really don't have a fucking clue do you?

look at the map and then do some research as to the per capita income of those red states...

 

[WillowTree]

Not really. The liberal union would cause no end of difficulty, would screw up their own citizenry and we'd end up accepting them as refugees as they fled, then be forced to fight the corrupt regimes of the left.

 

[AllieBaba]

Do you actually know which states have the highest GSPs, have the lowest crime, the highest standards of living, and which pay the most Federal incomes taxes in, but which also get the least back from the Feds?

The blue States.

Believe me, if the USA divided into Red and Blue states, the Red states would come out of it a lot worse off than they are currently.

You guys in the Red states would get most of our military bases, most of our military retired, most of the least educated and poorest populations, and you'd have most of the minorities and illegal immigrants, too.

You would corner the market on ocra and grits, though, if that makes ya'll feel any better about things.

The blue states would get the vast majority of world class universities, nobel prize winners, high tech industries, and the highest paid and best educated populations. We'd have most of the Jews, too, thank God!

We'd also have the market cornered on chablis and brie.

This is deal I do not think would be in the interests of the average Republican living in a Red state.

I think we're all better off with 50 states even if we can't stand one another.

Think of it as a marriage of inconvenience.

One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (who can afford it)

I never supported secession.

However, I'd like to see some evidence that the blue states have lower crime than red ones. And I like your (typical) portrayal of the citizens of red states as uneducated morons.

You do realize that people go to college...and then return to their home states. Right?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I can't believe you people are talking about dividing into red and blue!

The only real historic precedent for what we are going through is the fall of the Roman Empire, which basically just broke apart after greed and corruption fouled the bureaucracy.

If we had autonomous states...
- Not all would have legal abortion, but some would.
- Not all would have legal weed, but some would.
- Not all would have public health care, but some would.
- Not all would have fair taxes, but some would.
- Not all would have gay marriage, but some would.

Do you see where I'm going with this...

Do you think we might get closer than 50 / 50 on some of these issues if we broke up into smaller groups to deal with them?

Would allowing smaller groups to see what works and what does not work for their own neighborhoods be such a bad thing?

I am suddenly very much in favor of more autonomous states and a weak federal government.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Duplicate Post???

 

[glockmail]

With the state of our federal government pretty much sticking it to the US citizens would seceding from the union be a bad thing?

Any ideas?

I think it would be an act of extreme Patriotism, and I support it enthusiastically. The best way to do it is with a legal challenge, with a State AG arguing the case that Federal Department A is not sanctioned by the Constitution, and therefore the mandates associated with it on that State are illegal. Once that case is won make the same case against Federal Department B, and so on.

 

[KMAN]

You really don't have a fucking clue do you?

look at the map and then do some research as to the per capita income of those red states...

I guess not... Please explain it to me... Thanks.

 

[KMAN]

I think it would be an act of extreme Patriotism, and I support it enthusiastically. The best way to do it is with a legal challenge, with a State AG arguing the case that Federal Department A is not sanctioned by the Constitution, and therefore the mandates associated with it on that State are illegal. Once that case is won make the same case against Federal Department B, and so on.

If you look at what the constitution says the states would have a good case.

 

[glockmail]

If you look at what the constitution says the states would have a good case.

Exactly. Any State could cause the Feds to crash.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Exactly. Any State could cause the Feds to crash.

Except Alaska... They wouldn't want to get a spanking from mom Sarah.

(Or would they...?)
(Would you?)

-Joe

 

[jillian]

I think it would be an act of extreme Patriotism, and I support it enthusiastically. The best way to do it is with a legal challenge, with a State AG arguing the case that Federal Department A is not sanctioned by the Constitution, and therefore the mandates associated with it on that State are illegal. Once that case is won make the same case against Federal Department B, and so on.

You do realize those issues have already been raised and disposed of, right?

 

[jillian]

If you look at what the constitution says the states would have a good case.

No. They wouldn't.

 

[glockmail]

You do realize those issues have already been raised and disposed of, right?

Show me.

 

[Navy1960]

The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. By implication, Texas v. White also prohibits expulsion of a state that wishes to remain part of the Union. (Expulsion, satirically advanced recently in a column by Mike Thompson, also would seem to run afoul of Article V of the Constitution, which provides "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement?

Congress only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How might the states respectively, or the people, act collectively to approve the secession of one or more states? The Constitution sets forth no mechanism to answer this question either, although the process of constitutional amendment would pretty clearly suffice.

So there you have it folks, No state can just up and leave the Union we had a little war over this one remember? However, if a constitutional amendment is passed that allowed them to leave is passed then, there is no provision in the constitution that opposes it.

 

[Navy1960]

The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. By implication, Texas v. White also prohibits expulsion of a state that wishes to remain part of the Union. (Expulsion, satirically advanced recently in a column by Mike Thompson, also would seem to run afoul of Article V of the Constitution, which provides "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement?

Congress only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How might the states respectively, or the people, act collectively to approve the secession of one or more states? The Constitution sets forth no mechanism to answer this question either, although the process of constitutional amendment would pretty clearly suffice.

So there you have it folks, No state can just up and leave the Union we had a little war over this one remember? However, if a constitutional amendment is passed that allowed them to leave is passed then, there is no provision in the constitution that opposes it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The military resolution of the secession question was then given legal force by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1868 case of Texas v. White. The Court ruled there that even Texas--an independent republic before it joined the Union in 1845--had no right to secede. "The Constitution," the Court said, "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

Texas v. White is settled law. It stands for the proposition that the Constitution prohibits unilateral secession. By implication, Texas v. White also prohibits expulsion of a state that wishes to remain part of the Union. (Expulsion, satirically advanced recently in a column by Mike Thompson, also would seem to run afoul of Article V of the Constitution, which provides "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.") What does Texas v. White have to say about secession by mutual agreement?

Congress only has the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

How might the states respectively, or the people, act collectively to approve the secession of one or more states? The Constitution sets forth no mechanism to answer this question either, although the process of constitutional amendment would pretty clearly suffice.

So there you have it folks, No state can just up and leave the Union we had a little war over this one remember? However, if a constitutional amendment is passed that allowed them to leave is passed then, there is no provision in the constitution that opposes it.

Correction: no state can legally secede from the union.

The question you have to ask is "will McCain or Obama send troops to shoot Americans to preserve the union?"

Civil War II - The Sequel - perhaps... perhaps not.

-Joe

 

[jillian]

Correction: no state can legally secede from the union.

The question you have to ask is "will McCain or Obama send troops to shoot Americans to preserve the union?"

Civil War II - The Sequel - perhaps... perhaps not.

-Joe

Is that what you're hoping for?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is that what you're hoping for?

Yes and no.

I can't help but think the hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage, legal weed, etc will be easier to solve 'neighborhood by neighborhood' as it were.

The stuff that divides this country will never be split other than 50 / 50 on a national level... Aren't we tired of hashing them back and forth?

If the 50 states had more autonomy lots of different solutions would be tried and eventually a few good solutions would remain.

If The People of a given state were smart and invested in infrastructure and education, they would attract business and jobs - the kind of business and jobs that The People want - in theory.

I have always wondered how a US Senator from Georgia should be involved in the decision of The People of Wyoming to harvest the coal under their feet or not. Same can be said for legal abortions in South Dakota. I wonder how many states would make abortion illegal if they could? I wonder which ones would make weed legal if not for the powerful liquor lobbyists in DC?

More 'yes' than 'no' I suppose...

-Joe