Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[BasicGreatGuy]

If people want to get the political hacks attention, they can stop paying their income taxes in mass. The federal government will come to a halt. The hacks will have no choice but to listen then.

 

[Elutherian]

If people want to get the political hacks attention, they can stop paying their income taxes in mass. The federal government will come to a halt. The hacks will have no choice but to listen then.

Now that would be a great statement... the problem is you ain't about to convince the whole nation to stop paying taxes. That is until the dollar collapses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The constitution strictly says that the federal government may only dictate to a state about what it can do when the constitution says they can about things that are prohibited to them. All other powers are reserved for the state and the last time I checked there is nothing in the constitution that says a state can't depart.

I don't think that states should leave but it is still a right that they have which makes the union a voluntary union of states that can leave and stay as they please. The civil war did not alter the constitution with new amendments forbidding each state from leaving. It only made the idea of leaving unthinkable because we know their would be a war where any state that wants to leave will be crushed by the US armed forces. This situation is not the path to freedom but to tyranny of the federal government because how can you say each state enjoys a status of being free if the federal government interferes with their own domestic affairs and forbids them from forming their own federation with other states or countries for that matter.

The lesser parts (the individuals states) will not dictate to the whole greater than the sum, the U.S. symbolized by Old Glory. Stop the drama. This was decided in April 1865.

By the by, I am assuming you mean secession, not sucession.

 

[Elutherian]

The constitution strictly says that the federal government may only dictate to a state about what it can do when the constitution says they can about things that are prohibited to them. All other powers are reserved for the state and the last time I checked there is nothing in the constitution that says a state can't depart.

I don't think that states should leave but it is still a right that they have which makes the union a voluntary union of states that can leave and stay as they please. The civil war did not alter the constitution with new amendments forbidding each state from leaving. It only made the idea of leaving unthinkable because we know their would be a war where any state that wants to leave will be crushed by the US armed forces. This situation is not the path to freedom but to tyranny of the federal government because how can you say each state enjoys a status of being free if the federal government interferes with their own domestic affairs and forbids them from forming their own federation with other states or countries for that matter.

The lesser parts (the individuals states) will not dictate to the whole greater than the sum, the U.S. symbolized by Old Glory. Stop the drama. This was decided in April 1865.

Man you got it all backwards. A seceding state ain't trying to dictate to anybody but themselves. It's the Federal Government who's trying to start something by saying they can't go nowhere.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

If people want to get the political hacks attention, they can stop paying their income taxes in mass. The federal government will come to a halt. The hacks will have no choice but to listen then.

Now that would be a great statement... the problem is you ain't about to convince the whole nation to stop paying taxes. That is until the dollar collapses.

It doesn't have to be the whole nation.

There are people from all political factions, who are fed up with taxes and the political prostitutes in Washington. You get several million people not paying taxes, and going on radio and tv saying such, the political prostitutes will have to start paying attention. The government isn't going to put several million people in jail. In jail means no revenue for them. It means bad publicity for them.

A movement like that would catch on fast.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where's the constitutional amendment making it illegal?

No amendment required. It's there in the constitution already. Look at the words "more perfect union" in the preamble.

The Preamble does not give the federal government any powers.

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No amendment required. It's there in the constitution already. Look at the words "more perfect union" in the preamble.

The Preamble does not give the federal government any powers.

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

Where was this stated? And since Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union if it became destructive to their liberty we can safely say that this was not the case at all.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

No amendment required. It's there in the constitution already. Look at the words "more perfect union" in the preamble.

The Preamble does not give the federal government any powers.

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

Nothing in the founding supporting documents supports your supposition. In fact, the founding fathers believed differently.

I don't think we are at the point of secession. I think there are plenty of other avenues that people can avail themselves to.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it. There is nothing in the Constitution or the founding supporting documents that states that when a state joined the union, that it had to stay joined by force.

What you are suggesting is illogical and goes against our founding history. The founding fathers did not free themselves from one tyrant, so that they could enslave themselves once again to another.

If you have actual proof via the Constitution that supports your position, I would like to see it. Given your ill-founded assertion with the Preamble, it doesn't look good for you.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Preamble does not give the federal government any powers.

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

Where was this stated? And since Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union if it became destructive to their liberty we can safely say that this was not the case at all.

Hmm, am I going to side with Kevin Kennedy, some unknown nothing on the Internet, or with Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt? Hmm, decisions decisions......

 

[Elutherian]

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

Where was this stated? And since Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union if it became destructive to their liberty we can safely say that this was not the case at all.

Hmm, am I going to side with Kevin Kennedy, some unknown nothing on the Internet, or with Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt? Hmm, decisions decisions......

You know Chase is on the 10,000 dollar bill... only non-president to do so. I just thought that was an interesting fact. Sure they could have given it to a black guy after running out of white presidents... but no... let's put some son of a bitch nobody's heard of.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

Where was this stated? And since Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union if it became destructive to their liberty we can safely say that this was not the case at all.

Hmm, am I going to side with Kevin Kennedy, some unknown nothing on the Internet, or with Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt? Hmm, decisions decisions......

If you knew what you were talking about, you would make your case with the Constitution, and our supporting founding documents. You can't do that though. That is why you rely on a SCOTUS decision.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Federal Government doesn't require any power in this case. The intent of the union was to be in perpetuity. The states committed themselves to that. They cannot un-commit themselves.

Where was this stated? And since Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union if it became destructive to their liberty we can safely say that this was not the case at all.

Hmm, am I going to side with Kevin Kennedy, some unknown nothing on the Internet, or with Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt? Hmm, decisions decisions......

I believe this is called an appeal to authority.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I am all for seccession. The fewer states and people the easier it would be to govern.

Can we kick a few states out? I would start with Texas. They don't want to be part of the Union anyway. Mississippi, Alabama and California would be my next nominations to kick out.

 

[Old Rocks]

On July Third, 1863 this issue was settled. All of your squaking and posturing will not unsettle it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where was this stated? And since Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York all reserved the right to leave the Union if it became destructive to their liberty we can safely say that this was not the case at all.

Hmm, am I going to side with Kevin Kennedy, some unknown nothing on the Internet, or with Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt? Hmm, decisions decisions......

If you knew what you were talking about, you would make your case with the Constitution, and our supporting founding documents. You can't do that though. That is why you rely on a SCOTUS decision.

The decision clarifies the case at hand by showing the proper interpretation of the Constitution. As such, it is authoritative. Certainly more authoritative than a bunch of uneducated yayhoos mouthing of on some board somewhere.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am all for seccession. The fewer states and people the easier it would be to govern.

Can we kick a few states out? I would start with Texas. They don't want to be part of the Union anyway. Mississippi, Alabama and California would be my next nominations to kick out.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Hmm, am I going to side with Kevin Kennedy, some unknown nothing on the Internet, or with Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme COurt? Hmm, decisions decisions......

If you knew what you were talking about, you would make your case with the Constitution, and our supporting founding documents. You can't do that though. That is why you rely on a SCOTUS decision.

The decision clarifies the case at hand by showing the proper interpretation of the Constitution. As such, it is authoritative. Certainly more authoritative than a bunch of uneducated yayhoos mouthing of on some board somewhere.

Will you be offering anything resembling a substantive retort for your position, or keep deflecting?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you knew what you were talking about, you would make your case with the Constitution, and our supporting founding documents. You can't do that though. That is why you rely on a SCOTUS decision.

The decision clarifies the case at hand by showing the proper interpretation of the Constitution. As such, it is authoritative. Certainly more authoritative than a bunch of uneducated yayhoos mouthing of on some board somewhere.

Will you be offering anything resembling a substantive retort for your position, or keep deflecting?

There is nothing to retort to. You can jump up and down all day long and scream there is a right of secession. But the Supreme COurt of the US, the ultimate body in charge of interpreting the US Constitution says there isn't. That would seem to be more authoritative than anything you have to say on the topic.
If you have some legal proof that the Chase court got it wrong, please offer it up so we can look at it. If not, then I guess the discussion is over and your side lost.

 

[The Rabbi]

Salmon P. Chase or BasicGreatGuy or KevinKennedy. Guys, if you are appealing to authority, you lose. If you are appealing to the Constitution, you lose. If you are appealing to history, you lost in 1865. Hmmm. . . you guys are lozers on this issue.

OK, it was unsubstantiated. But I agree with it anyway.