Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[geauxtohell]

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

The high water mark of the confederacy.

All that rebel pride was whipped effectively by a liberal college professor and his fellow Maine men who were out of ammunition.

 

[bodecea]

Hell no I didn't forget. Lincoln was a whole lot of crazy... talking about a "Perpetual" union. Yeah, he saved the union all right. And if my wife leaves me I can "save my union" by hunting her down, beating her senseless, then chaining her down in the basement. After all, that union was perpetual.

Refresh my memory...who fired first?

Oh don't even get me started on that sh*t.

Fort Sumter was abandoned up until the States seceded from the Union, then Lincoln decided he better send some troops there. Of course South Carolina dissagreed with his claim to a military base in their state.
I don't know who fired first, but no one got shot, no one got killed. But good ol' honest abe got a propoganda campaign started to do what he was already planning to do anyways.

Sort of reminds me of 9/11... which was obviously much worse... being used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Prove that Sumter was abandoned prior to the secession of the traitorous South Carolina.


Hint: the South fired first...don't even try to make us believe you didn't know that.

 

[bodecea]

Oddly enough, Jefferson Davis, Then a Senator from Mississippi, did not want the confederate states to secede from the union at the time that they did. He wanted to argue the case for secession before the supreme court - and find a peaceful resolution to the crisis. (Ironically, he was the only person executed at the end of the civil war).

Whaaaaaa? Jefferson Davis was never executed.

The key to understanding the Texas vs. White decision is to look at the date : 1869. There is no way in hell that the supreme court was going to decide in favor of secession only 4 years after some half million American had died fighting a civil war over the issue of secession. Could you imagine if they had decided in favor of secession? The idea is laughable.

It's unfortunate that history played out the way it did. In fact, even if the the Civil war had not occured, if Jefferson Davis had successfully argued the case of succession, it STILL would have been the obligation of the Federal Government to invade and occupy the South due to the humanitarian mandate to abolish slavery - not to mention slavery's negative impact the economy of the north - as well as the impact of the southern states controling the Mississippi.

Weird how things worked out, but in fact, secession is a moot point. In isolation the argument may have it's merits, but it just ain't gonna happen - that's for sure.

Once some Southerner said to me:
"The South's gonna do it again"

So I replied:
"Oh good, that way we can kick your stupid asses all over again!"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The supremacy clause already makes it impossible for to exit the Constitution's jurisdiction.

It doesn't say that.

 

[Polk]

The supremacy clause already makes it impossible for to exit the Constitution's jurisdiction.

It doesn't say that.

If you don't control your own affairs, you are not sovereign by definition.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The supremacy clause already makes it impossible for to exit the Constitution's jurisdiction.

It doesn't say that.

If you don't control your own affairs, you are not sovereign by definition.

Except the states do control their own affairs, and are perfectly suited to take up the powers that they ceded to the federal government if it became necessary.

 

[Charles Stucker]

A Modest Proposal
For preventing the guns of violent people in Texas, from being a burden on their owners and country, and making their removal beneficial to the public.

By Charles Stucker with apologies to Dr. Swift

It is a daunting thing to see, those who travel through the hospitals and emergency rooms of this State, when they see the victims all about. A mugger clutching a hand to his bloody thigh, shot by his intended victim, a burglar, his left arm nearly amputated by the shotgun of an irate, and armed, homeowner, and, perhaps most tragic, a serial rapist, cruelly castrated by a small caliber handgun wielded by a girl not even old enough to drink alcohol. If only he had kept to girls too young to own guns he might be able to father another generation of fine upstanding citizens like himself, who contribute to the prosperity of our nation by providing excellent employment to countless Judges, Prosecutors, Public Defenders, clerks, police and prison guards, to say nothing of all the support staff also gainfully employed. These and dozens of scenes just like them are repeated daily throughout Texas and other regions where gun ownership is both legal and common; innocent felons callously murdered by brutal Texans unconcerned with the welfare of all those employed by the modest number of professional criminals who selflessly sacrifice their comfort that others, and here of course I mean those born to proper families and hence in political positions or good law firms, may have better incomes.

I think it is agreed by all that the frequent large number of handguns carried by fathers, and sometimes even mothers is, in the presence of the deplorable state of the State, a very great additional grievance; and therefore anyone who could find a legal, constitutional method of removing those guns from society and making thereby their owners useful members of society would serve so well our republic, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

My intention is very far beyond simply removing those guns owned by professed drug purveyors; it is of much greater extent and shall take in the whole number of guns regardless of their caliber which are carried by private citizens, as well as those used to commit violent crimes on our streets. My plan if fully and properly executed, for half measures simply will not do, might also benefit our nation by reducing the number of wrong thinkers, and the public debt as well, though the latter may be something of a mixed blessing as lower debt may lead to lower taxes for the middle classes which could lead to the unpalatable result of yet more nouveau riche who did not achieve their wealth through proper inheritance. Nevertheless I have great faith in the ability of our public servants, most of whom do come from good old money families, to spend any windfall for the betterment of the government and society without materially reducing our national debt. Moreover so great is the benefit of removing all guns from private ownership that I am willing to contemplate even that horrid potentiality to obtain the proper end.

To wit, the plan is simplicity itself, such that it alarms me that no other has yet conceived of the notion, for though I am accounted uncommonly bright and have put long hours into contemplating an end to privately owned guns, it seems unbelievable that no other has previously proposed this most excellent solution, and of this I am confident for had this solution been presented then withal it would have been enacted, for such is the adroitness of the scheme that, upon hearing it, all will certainly agree it is the best solution possible, and hence had any made the suggestion before it would have already met with universal accolades, save perhaps in those quarters where wrong thinking encourages gun ownership, and already been implemented, to the betterment of all. My plan is no less than that the United States declare war upon a nation with which we have good relations and then immediately, before any possible military maneuver might unexpectedly secure our victory, an event which would derail the goal, surrender, conditionally, to the other nation. This would allow the government to neatly sidestep the constitutional restrictions preventing them from eliminating gun ownership by making one of the conditions of our surrender, perhaps even the sole condition, be the removal of all privately owned firearms.

Surely the elegance of this solution will appeal to all, for there would then exist no method for wrong thinkers, who wish to retain their guns, to do aught but complain. Indeed, if the complaints are believed, after careful analysis, as likely to be too strenuous, then one might include a restriction on complaints about the surrender in said terms. It might even be better to include such a clause as it would certainly insure a fuller result for the follow up portion of the plan to remove private gun ownership. For this is the true genius, the place where not only are guns removed, but so is wrong thinking, and we can all certainly agree that wrong thinking is the root cause of gun ownership and that therefore the elimination of wrong thinking must be part of any final solution to the problem of private gun owners.

Having spoken with an esteemed colleague from the Justice Department, who wishes to remain anonymous that none give undue accolades to him for the assistance he rendered me in the research for this project, it appears that there exist something like sixteen million citizens of Texas who might be tried as adults for treason when they, by virtue of failing to part with their guns, something they are almost certain to do, violate a treaty restriction forced on the government by a foreign conqueror. Even if the average trial is disposed of with only twenty hours of time from the counsels and judge, that is still, by my calculations, enough to provide full time work for forty-eight thousands for the next ten years. To that we might add several times that number of clerks, bailiffs, guards, and even psychiatrists, for surely we should endeavor, given the large sample group which would be at our disposal, to determine if, as I have long suspected, the underlying cause of gun ownership is in truth mental illness. Ten years of prosecution also has the benefit that even newborns, taken from their mothers arms may, if the trials are scheduled in order of date of birth, with those born earliest tried first, reach an age where the court might rule that, given the heinous nature of their crimes, to wit insisting on their alleged rights to bear arms, they could stand trial as adults. Once the trials are finished we may even be able to export the labor of these undesirable convicts, as opposed to rapists, pimps, murderers and drug lords who do contribute to society, to our conqueror, and this may see a return of as much as $50,000 per individual sent to the foreign workshops. This would come to the sum of nearly half a trillion dollars which might be used to reduce our national debt, though as it would be obtained over a period of several years could more reasonably be spent to defray the costs of prosecuting the offenders and reduce the additional taxes sure to ensue from such an important undertaking, though I for one am quite willing to allow the working class to have an additional tax burden to pay for such an important undertaking.

I have further managed correspondence with a member of the ATF, one who served during that terrible tragedy with the maniacs who murdered all those ATF agents as they were going about their proper duties, an event which, unsurprisingly, took place in Texas, and he has assured me that there are over half a billion guns in private ownership throughout our great nation, and these weapons, once confiscated, might be sold to warlords around the globe for a tidy profit. As the warlords are the de facto government in their lands it is imminently just to supply them weapons as this is the same as providing them to any military for legitimate use. Again the proceeds might be used to retire public debt or, more profitably as has been already explained, to promote social progress by funding government programs.

Now I realize the immediate objection to the plan; the politicians will not enjoy giving up their personal sovereignty to a foreign government, but the beauty of the plan is that not only is the government giving only a very select sovereignty to the foreign government, but, as the opponent will be carefully chosen for just such purpose, the United States can, one the gun toting Texans are dealt with, declare another war to end the unjust restrictions from the first, and as the opponent will be a weak nation and our military will not be reduced in the conditional surrender the first time they will shortly be forced to surrender to us. Perhaps the terms of surrender can be such that the politicians agree they lose none of their personal power and hence nothing of import is lost. Then they would agree most heartily, and I am as confident of the ability of clever lawyers to create such a document as I am that the sun will rise on the morrow. All this is simply to show that I have carefully weighed all possible objections and would gladly avail myself to the government should they find one they cannot address.

I must of course begin my conclusion with the observation, which may be a nearly universal reaction to this scheme, that should Texas attempt to secede over this treaty the United States would be in an even better position to stomp out the murderous gun loving rebels by sending in the military. I understand that the 9th and 10th amendments of the constitution, along with the wording of the supreme court decision in White vs. Texas 1869, might lead one to incorrectly believe that a popular vote by the people of Texas would legally sever their ties with the Federal government, but there is a serious error in this logic. Despite America’s support for popular local self determination in the last few decades, all those were cases of right thinking people oppressed by tyrants, while in Texas it would be wrong thinking voters attempting to sever relations with the most perfect government on the Earth, and that difference, along with the primacy of US military might, makes all the difference. Texas and the Texans would stand no chance once US Air Force bombers leveled their cities, and the small arms of the citizens would avail them naught against tanks, and while it is a large state they are tremendously outnumbered by the remaining states who would certainly be too cowed by swift enactment of federal will to follow suit, should wrong thinking portions of their populations attempt a similar maneuver, to wit rebelling against the universally fair and just rule of the US government over perceived injustices.

Thus in due course we reach our summation, which is to say the end, for as delightful an intellectual diversion as this has been, all things must eventually cease, and that is the case here. So without undue verbosity, a tragic flaw in many writers which I eschew with much vigor, I will sum up. Private citizens carrying guns is both wrong thinking, a primary problem, and a cause of undue loss of important sections of our populace, which is to say professional criminals who provide gainful employment for large portions of our workforce in regulating their activities, a secondary, though still vitally relevant, problem. In order to correct the wrong thinking, which is such a problem as to create issues far beyond the ownership of guns, we must employ any intrigue at our disposal to achieve our ends, for the ends, as they say, justify any means. Thus the unthinkable, surrender to a weaker opponent, becomes inevitable as we seek to escape the unthinking restraints on our right thinking placed by the constitution, which while a grand document nonetheless contains several troublesome clauses, particularly in the Bill of Rights, which was clearly framed by a committee composed in no small part by wrong thinking individuals; why else would it include such dreadful clauses as to restrict the unchecked growth of centralized power? In the final analysis we find that ending private ownership of guns will lead to better government as there will be less dread in the hearts of criminals from private citizens, as well as removing the thoughts of armed insurrection as occurred once before to great lament all around, which will allow for further growth of government enforcement and, as a happy primary goal, enable many wrong thinkers to be changed into right thinkers by the Department of Corrections. So we reach our happy conclusion wherein wrong thinkers become right thinkers, guns are removed from public hands making criminals safer, and the government gains in both wealth and prestige by dealing both with the wrong thinkers and the increased numbers of criminals caused by the elimination of private weapons.

All satire aside, the prospect of losing constitutional rights to a treaty is anathema to continued liberty. Once the precedent is set, then any other right may be as easily removed by the same method. Governance is fundamentally a relation between the People and their nation, and when the government abuses that relationship the People can and should sever it. In 1776 the People of the American colonies, in the form of the Continental Congress, issued a Declaration of Independence against distant tyrants. Perhaps it is time the People of the State of Texas do the same.

 

[goldcatt]

The supremacy clause already makes it impossible for to exit the Constitution's jurisdiction.

It doesn't say that.

If you don't control your own affairs, you are not sovereign by definition.

Polk, are you honestly trying to argue that the States must be sovereign to themselves in order to have the right to leave the union they created?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Who said anything about taking up arms? You do realize that without secession we would all be talking with a brittish accent.

So what? This has been our own country with its own charter since 1776.

Any attempts to upset that arrangement has, historically, ended in bloodshed.

Any future attempts will end in bloodshed.

You guys don't get to dissolve the nation simply because your are in the throes of a massive hissy fit.

I beg to differ....if 200 million Americans are throwing a hissy fit the other 100 million better listen.

 

[oreo]

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 states rights have been crushed by the Federal Government who has an insatiable appetite for more & more control. On issues that the state should be handeling--I.E HEALTH CARE--EDUCATION, ETC! The reason--our federal government can print money--the states can't.

If this current out-of-control spending & mandates continue--it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see states wanting to succeed from under federal government control & debt.

"Government is NOT the solution--it's the PROBLEM" Ronald Reagan

 

[Modbert]

I beg to differ....if 200 million Americans are throwing a hissy fit the other 100 million better listen.

I don't think I even have to describe how inaccurate your comparison is.

 

[geauxtohell]

Who said anything about taking up arms? You do realize that without secession we would all be talking with a brittish accent.

So what? This has been our own country with its own charter since 1776.

Any attempts to upset that arrangement has, historically, ended in bloodshed.

Any future attempts will end in bloodshed.

You guys don't get to dissolve the nation simply because your are in the throes of a massive hissy fit.

I beg to differ....if 200 million Americans are throwing a hissy fit the other 100 million better listen.

If 200 million Americans collectively did any single thing, I'd be impressed.

As it stands less than 150 million even bothered to vote in the last presidential election, and the majority of those who did didn't vote for McCain.

So I am calling bullshit on your numbers.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

ALL right go ahead ang get by with LESS than yiu get from gov'y. MY STATE OD idaho pays less than they pay $1.20 per fed put in. so you May want to chack to see if you will be LOfed $$.OSING

 

[geauxtohell]

ALL right go ahead ang get by with LESS than yiu get from gov'y. MY STATE OD idaho pays less than they pay $1.20 per fed put in. so you May want to chack to see if you will be LOfed $$.OSING

Wha?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

So what? This has been our own country with its own charter since 1776.

Any attempts to upset that arrangement has, historically, ended in bloodshed.

Any future attempts will end in bloodshed.

You guys don't get to dissolve the nation simply because your are in the throes of a massive hissy fit.

I beg to differ....if 200 million Americans are throwing a hissy fit the other 100 million better listen.

If 200 million Americans collectively did any single thing, I'd be impressed.

As it stands less than 150 million even bothered to vote in the last presidential election, and the majority of those who did didn't vote for McCain.

So I am calling bullshit on your numbers.

Point taken on "If 200 million Americans..." and I wasn't expressing any particular number of displeased Americans....it's just a statement.

So you know what you can do with the rest of your comments.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

ALL right go ahead ang get by with LESS than yiu get from gov'y. MY STATE OD idaho pays less than they pay $1.20 per fed put in. so you May want to chack to see if you will be LOfed $$.OSING

Cold...lay off the brake fluid...that shit kills brain cells....

 

[The Rabbi]

No, secession is not in there. That's why the states have the right to do so. Let me quote the 10th Amendment for you again.

"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."

I'm still not seeing the word "secession" here. Maybe it's written in the corner somewhere.
Justice Chase didn't see it either, and he certainly knew the 10thA.
Looks like you're failing again here.

Apparently he didn't, and apparently neither do you. The 10th Amendment is clear. If a power is not denied to the states then the states reserve that power. Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, which means that secession is not denied to the states, which means that they have the right to secede.

No, you're making an argument for silence. The 10th says nothing about secession. You are trying to read "all" literally and that argument is a notorious failure in 1A and 2A cases. There are always limits on powers and rights, whether the Constitution says so or not.
But please bring some authoritative source that says the 10th includes the power to withdraw. I've already provided one that says they can't, so it looks like you're losing here.

 

[goldcatt]

It's not a political question.
I personally believe in a strong Federal government over individual State sovereignty. 50 different people heading in different directions trying to walk one dog makes no sense. But that's not the question either.
The question is whether the Constitution as drafted and subsequently amended allows for States (theoretically at least) to voluntarily leave the union they chartered. The answer is yes. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting question about the nature of the union.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a political question.
I personally believe in a strong Federal government over individual State sovereignty. 50 different people heading in different directions trying to walk one dog makes no sense. But that's not the question either.
The question is whether the Constitution as drafted and subsequently amended allows for States (theoretically at least) to voluntarily leave the union they chartered. The answer is yes. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting question about the nature of the union.

No, the answer is no. You have never shown where a yes answer might come from. I have shown authoritative views that say the answer is no. If you have an authoritative source that supports your contention please post it. But after many pages the answer obviously is you dont and you are relying on a simple minded reading of the text. Which is a no no in ConLaw.

 

[goldcatt]

It's not a political question.
I personally believe in a strong Federal government over individual State sovereignty. 50 different people heading in different directions trying to walk one dog makes no sense. But that's not the question either.
The question is whether the Constitution as drafted and subsequently amended allows for States (theoretically at least) to voluntarily leave the union they chartered. The answer is yes. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting question about the nature of the union.

No, the answer is no. You have never shown where a yes answer might come from. I have shown authoritative views that say the answer is no. If you have an authoritative source that supports your contention please post it. But after many pages the answer obviously is you dont and you are relying on a simple minded reading of the text. Which is a no no in ConLaw.

What authoritative view have you offered? The Supremacy Clause? The Preamble, for goodness' sake? A politically motivated legal fiction of a supreme court case?
It's not there. The closest argument is the Article 4 analysis, but it falls short due to the lack of linkage between the Federal government's paternalistic role over the States' governmental structure and the right to set aside a State government and set up a new one against its will, by force if necessary.
The fact is, it's not there. You argue as though the Constitution were a contract between the States in perpetuity with force as the remedy for breach. It is not, and under such a contractual view of the document the entirety would probably be nullified. It is a charter under which the States agreed to cede pieces of their authority to a new entity. There is nothing stating the charter is irrevocable, therefore, it must be.
That said, if any State were to try it of course they'd get their asses handed to them on a platter by Uncle Sam. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't mean the theoretical right doesn't exist.