Secession: Proposed Constitutional Amendment

[LadyGunSlinger]

Why is it every time some progressive puke wins people start talking about this?????? Hey people do you really think it is a smart think to talk about what amounts to treason online? cause in the federal governments eyes thats what it is. No one is going to split from the country ...Why? Cause it will cause war. Its that simple. It wont even matter who starts it.

I'm debating the merits of the US Constitution .. I haven't said anything about supporting secession.. Haven't even commented on that subject matter so kindly redirect your charge.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well no.

There absolutely should be no right to secede.

There is a right for folks to leave. If they are unhappy they should use that right.

One of two choices over throw the existing government or secede peacefully

 

[WorldWatcher]

Once more:

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the Constitution created the federal government, and the provisions of the Constitution were designed to regulate the activity of the federal government. The people of each state enacted their own constitution, Marshall contended, to regulate the activities of their state and local governments. Thus, Marshall reasoned that the U.S. Constitution operates only as a limitation on the powers of the federal government, unless one of its provisions expressly restricts the powers of state governments, as does Article I, Section 10.


fourteenth amendment legal definition of fourteenth amendment. fourteenth amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Again, the power to suppress insurrection is explicitly given to the Congress in Article I Section 8.


>>>>

I'd like a direct link plz.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


>>>>

 

[thanatos144]

Why is it every time some progressive puke wins people start talking about this?????? Hey people do you really think it is a smart think to talk about what amounts to treason online? cause in the federal governments eyes thats what it is. No one is going to split from the country ...Why? Cause it will cause war. Its that simple. It wont even matter who starts it.

I'm debating the merits of the US Constitution .. I haven't said anything about supporting secession.. Haven't even commented on that subject matter so kindly redirect your charge.

It is not in the constitution so no your not. The 10th amendment does not cover secession. It does not say it can ignore all federal laws just ones that are not the federal governments business..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Uhhh.. this is backwards.. you have to remember that it is the STATES that give the power to the federal government.... it is not up to the fed to say whether a state can withdraw

Actually it is, the States gave the power to suppress revolt to the Congress.


>>>>

Don't think we have armed insurrection here..

The Constitution doesn't say "armed insurrection". It says "insurrection" which is a revolt against established authority.

Insurrection:: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Revolt:: to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)

Insurrection - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Revolt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

this is no different in reality than someone looking to change citizenship to another country...

Actually there is a huge difference. One is an individual act. The other is an attempt to change an established government.

If this were, for example, Texas looking to cease to be part of the union, amassing troops on the border, preventing those who wish to remain as US citizens from leaving or taking them prisoner, etc, you would have something with revolt or insurrection

Texas petitioned the United States for admission to the Union and it took the vote of Congress for such admission to pass, same principle should apply for Texas to leave the union.


>>>>

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Again, the power to suppress insurrection is explicitly given to the Congress in Article I Section 8.


>>>>

I'd like a direct link plz.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


>>>>

Much too broad.. You noted a section and article of the US Constitution which YOU state supports your argument of an all powerful Federal government. I'd like that direct link.

 

[wayneb]

New to this forum. There's almost a million signatures on the recent state secession petitions (collected in just a few days). And some of the mainstream news media is picking up on it and giving nervous responses.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

why is it every time some progressive puke wins people start talking about this?????? Hey people do you really think it is a smart think to talk about what amounts to treason online? Cause in the federal governments eyes thats what it is. No one is going to split from the country ...why? Cause it will cause war. Its that simple. It wont even matter who starts it.

i'm debating the merits of the us constitution .. I haven't said anything about supporting secession.. Haven't even commented on that subject matter so kindly redirect your charge.

it is not in the constitution so no your not. The 10th amendment does not cover secession. It does not say it can ignore all federal laws just ones that are not the federal governments business..

excuse me... For the last time.. I said zero about secession.. Zero zero zero..

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Tenth Amendment recognizes that "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."

And suppression of insurrection is explicitly authorized for Congress.


>>>>

 

[francoHFW]

The brainwashed silly morons have absolutely gone terminal...

 

[thanatos144]

The Tenth Amendment recognizes that "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."

And suppression of insurrection is explicitly authorized for Congress.


>>>>

and if they dont authorize it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well no.

There absolutely should be no right to secede.

There is a right for folks to leave. If they are unhappy they should use that right.

One of two choices over throw the existing government or secede peacefully

And the intent of the OP is to provide a structure for the latter to prevent the former (and it's associated bloodshed and chaos).


>>>>

 

[thanatos144]

The brainwashed silly morons have absolutely gone terminal...

You must have hit a wrong link cause this isn't the daily Kos

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Actually it is, the States gave the power to suppress revolt to the Congress.


>>>>

Don't think we have armed insurrection here..

The Constitution doesn't say "armed insurrection". It says "insurrection" which is a revolt against established authority.

Insurrection:: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Revolt:: to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)

Insurrection - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Revolt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

this is no different in reality than someone looking to change citizenship to another country...

Actually there is a huge difference. One is an individual act. The other is an attempt to change an established government.

If this were, for example, Texas looking to cease to be part of the union, amassing troops on the border, preventing those who wish to remain as US citizens from leaving or taking them prisoner, etc, you would have something with revolt or insurrection

Texas petitioned the United States for admission to the Union and it took the vote of Congress for such admission to pass, same principle should apply for Texas to leave the union.


>>>>

There it is^^^^ YOUR implied definition of REVOLT. You're using your own standard based upon your own set of ideological beliefs.. That's nothing more than your opinion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'd like a direct link plz.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


>>>>

Much too broad.. You noted a section and article of the US Constitution which YOU state supports your argument of an all powerful Federal government. I'd like that direct link.

I'm not into playing games. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is in the link provided. If you are to lazy to scroll down and read the appropriate section then I can't help you.


>>>>

 

[g5000]

New to this forum. There's almost a million signatures on the recent state secession petitions (collected in just a few days). And some of the mainstream news media is picking up on it and giving nervous responses.

No one is nervous. This is fluff entertainment to pass the time for the media. If you can't even get one out of a hundred people to click on a button in an online survey, you have not yet even managed to break past the retard demographic.

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Tenth Amendment recognizes that "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."

And suppression of insurrection is explicitly authorized for Congress.


>>>>

and if they dont authorize it?

The secession?

Then that would be up to Congress to decide how to deal with the insurrection per the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Don't think we have armed insurrection here..

The Constitution doesn't say "armed insurrection". It says "insurrection" which is a revolt against established authority.

Insurrection:: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Revolt:: to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government)

Insurrection - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Revolt - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




Actually there is a huge difference. One is an individual act. The other is an attempt to change an established government.

If this were, for example, Texas looking to cease to be part of the union, amassing troops on the border, preventing those who wish to remain as US citizens from leaving or taking them prisoner, etc, you would have something with revolt or insurrection

Texas petitioned the United States for admission to the Union and it took the vote of Congress for such admission to pass, same principle should apply for Texas to leave the union.


>>>>

There it is^^^^ YOUR implied definition of REVOLT. You're using your own standard based upon your own set of ideological beliefs.. That's nothing more than your opinion.

Nope the links were to the dictionary definition of insurrection and revolt not "my" definition.


>>>>

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The Tenth Amendment recognizes that "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."

And suppression of insurrection is explicitly authorized for Congress.


>>>>

INSURRECTION. A rebellion of citizens or subjects of a country against its government.

How is it that States with a majority (assumption) of their citizens wanting to be independent peacefully, considered insurrection?
*Disclaimer-- I do not support secession..but I do support STATES RIGHTS

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


>>>>

Much too broad.. You noted a section and article of the US Constitution which YOU state supports your argument of an all powerful Federal government. I'd like that direct link.

I'm not into playing games. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is in the link provided. If you are to lazy to scroll down and read the appropriate section then I can't help you.


>>>>

If you want to play personal insults, do it elsewhere.. I've not insulted you, DO THE SAME.