Secession: Proposed Constitutional Amendment

[WorldWatcher]

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.

That section doesn't support your claim.

EXACTLY!!! It's why she refuses to link it, instead tosses out INSULTS.. Typical.

I provided the link, just read Article I Section 8, it provides that Congress has the power to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution expressly does support that claim.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Because they are part of the United States, which is a superior (has in higher not necessarily better) part of the government. Summary secession without the consent of Congress would be insurrection against the United States.

I also don't support secession and do support state powers as defined under the 10th Amendment, however insurrection suppression is a Congressional authority.



>>>>

Except the state can simply not send representatives to the congress... you are assuming that the fed assumes the power completely over the state when the state joins the union... it is the opposite, since it is/was the states that give the fed its very specific powers.. the state, by construct of how the union was put together, never really lost its sovereignty... even though ones like Lincoln thought they did by ratifying the Constitution

I'm simply pointing out that when a State joins the union it does so with the consent of the other States. It then enters into a binding compact as part of the United States. As such it is reasonable to provide that for a State to leave the compact, then it would take the same process.

That's it.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Insurrection nor revolt require armed conflict, both only require and attempt to usurp the existing government and the suggested OP provides for a PEACEFUL transition to secession.

The OP provides for nothing because the federal government will never agree to a diminution in the extent of its control.

Any secession amendment that would mean anything would have to allow secession based solely on the popular will of the citizens in the state that wants to secede. Congress's opinion on the matter would be irrelevant.

Can a "State" join the Union simply on the popular will of the citizens in that reason or is Congress's opinion on the matter relevant?


If the opinion of Congress is relevant when joining the Union, why is not the opinion of Congress relevant when a State wants to leave the Union?


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Ever notice how the majority of libruls never support State's rights?? As to secession, they don't support that either.. that one is a no brainer. They wouldn't have any taxpayer base to fund their welfare programs.

You lie again.

I am a Liberal and I totally support a state's right to peacefully Secede. In fact, I am hoping Texas does that very thing. Soon.

 

[bodecea]

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.

That section doesn't support your claim.

EXACTLY!!! It's why she refuses to link it, instead tosses out INSULTS.. Typical.

Lying again...the Link was provided.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm simply pointing out that when a State joins the union it does so with the consent of the other States. It then enters into a binding compact as part of the United States. As such it is reasonable to provide that for a State to leave the compact, then it would take the same process.

That's it.

There's nothing "reasonable" about that. When you join a club, the consent of the existing members is required. Does that mean you need their permission to leave the club? Only a lunatic would claim you do. The United States was originally designed to be a "voluntary" association of states. If you can't leave, then it's no longer voluntary.

Furthermore, your amendment wouldn't change a thing because Congress can already vote to allow a state to secede. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it can't.

 

[bripat9643]

Can a "State" join the Union simply on the popular will of the citizens in that reason or is Congress's opinion on the matter relevant?


If the opinion of Congress is relevant when joining the Union, why is not the opinion of Congress relevant when a State wants to leave the Union?

I already explained that. Furthermore, your amendment is totally pointless because Congress already possesses the power to allow a state to secede. It only takes a majority vote.

 

[DiamondDave]

Because they are part of the United States, which is a superior (has in higher not necessarily better) part of the government. Summary secession without the consent of Congress would be insurrection against the United States.

I also don't support secession and do support state powers as defined under the 10th Amendment, however insurrection suppression is a Congressional authority.



>>>>

Except the state can simply not send representatives to the congress... you are assuming that the fed assumes the power completely over the state when the state joins the union... it is the opposite, since it is/was the states that give the fed its very specific powers.. the state, by construct of how the union was put together, never really lost its sovereignty... even though ones like Lincoln thought they did by ratifying the Constitution

I'm simply pointing out that when a State joins the union it does so with the consent of the other States. It then enters into a binding compact as part of the United States. As such it is reasonable to provide that for a State to leave the compact, then it would take the same process.

That's it.


>>>>

It is not selling itself into slavery or ownership, but entering a common agreement to work together.. agreements are terminated all the time

 

[bripat9643]

I provided the link, just read Article I Section 8, it provides that Congress has the power to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution expressly does support that claim.

Secession is not an insurrection.

Next argument.

 

[regent]

If people want to leave the United States, they have that right, but they don't have the right to take the state with them.
Another question, however, if people did want to leave the US should we help them by making an agreement with other nations to welcome them, if so, in what nations would these people that want to secede be comfortable?

 

[bripat9643]

If people want to leave the United States, they have that right, but they don't have the right to take the state with them.

Says who? Certainly not the Constitution.

Another question, however, if people did want to leave the US should we help them by making an agreement with other nations to welcome them, if so, in what nations would these people that want to secede be comfortable?

Leaving and secession are two separate things. Try sticking to the topic.

 

[DiamondDave]

If people want to leave the United States, they have that right, but they don't have the right to take the state with them.
Another question, however, if people did want to leave the US should we help them by making an agreement with other nations to welcome them, if so, in what nations would these people that want to secede be comfortable?

So.. the people are different than the collective union known as the state or country.. . got it...

Now someone better explain to me again then how "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" then means for the people...

 

[9thIDdoc]

Upon the receipt of a Bill of Secession, the States representatives to Congress will become non-voting members on all matters during the period of consideration of the bill.


If a State is still a part of the union there is no just excuse to deprive that State, it's representatives, and citizens of any rights or protections afforded by the US Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm simply pointing out that when a State joins the union it does so with the consent of the other States. It then enters into a binding compact as part of the United States. As such it is reasonable to provide that for a State to leave the compact, then it would take the same process.

That's it.

There's nothing "reasonable" about that. When you join a club, the consent of the existing members is required. Does that mean you need their permission to leave the club? Only a lunatic would claim you do. The United States was originally designed to be a "voluntary" association of states. If you can't leave, then it's no longer voluntary.

Which is already established precedent.

Furthermore, your amendment wouldn't change a thing because Congress can already vote to allow a state to secede. There's nothing in the Constitution that says it can't.

True, they could.

What it does do though is provide specifics on a process that can be consistently applied. Just as the Constitution spells out how States are admitted to the Union, it will spell out a process and expectation of what will happen when a State leaves the Union.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Except the state can simply not send representatives to the congress... you are assuming that the fed assumes the power completely over the state when the state joins the union... it is the opposite, since it is/was the states that give the fed its very specific powers.. the state, by construct of how the union was put together, never really lost its sovereignty... even though ones like Lincoln thought they did by ratifying the Constitution

I'm simply pointing out that when a State joins the union it does so with the consent of the other States. It then enters into a binding compact as part of the United States. As such it is reasonable to provide that for a State to leave the compact, then it would take the same process.

That's it.


>>>>

It is not selling itself into slavery or ownership, but entering a common agreement to work together.. agreements are terminated all the time

Yes and there are ramifications if contracts are broken without mutual agreement.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I provided the link, just read Article I Section 8, it provides that Congress has the power to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution expressly does support that claim.

Secession is not an insurrection.

Next argument.

Sure it is as without the consent of both parties involved then it is revolting against the established government.


Next argument.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Upon the receipt of a Bill of Secession, the States representatives to Congress will become non-voting members on all matters during the period of consideration of the bill.


If a State is still a part of the union there is no just excuse to deprive that State, it's representatives, and citizens of any rights or protections afforded by the US Constitution.

:Shurg:

That's negotiable and could go either way.

The logic is that a State petitioning to going the Union does not get a vote on the matter, there fore a State petitioning to leave the Union should not vote on the matter either. The will of that State is known because of the Bill of Secession, the vote is for the other States to accept or reject the bill.


>>>>

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm simply pointing out that when a State joins the union it does so with the consent of the other States. It then enters into a binding compact as part of the United States. As such it is reasonable to provide that for a State to leave the compact, then it would take the same process.

That's it.


>>>>

It is not selling itself into slavery or ownership, but entering a common agreement to work together.. agreements are terminated all the time

Yes and there are ramifications if contracts are broken without mutual agreement.


>>>>

And nobody said there was not... there would be ramifications on both sides if a state does this... it does not take away from the fact that the states did not sell themselves into slavery of the fed by joining the union of states

 

[regent]

I wonder how many of these arguments were used in 1860? Whatever, the answer was given in 1865.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

When our ancestors were unhappy with their government, they didn't just "leave" they fought for their Independence. They fought for their right to institute a government that would represent them and their interests. Do you really think we should do less than our ancestors did?

The south was in the right. Read the Declaration of Independence. Too bad so many concentrate on the Constitution and Ignore the Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence, but what can you expect from a government the ignores the constitution anyway?