Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[rightwinger]

For the record, I am a pragmatist. I am less concerned with the esoteric legal arguments that surround this issue, which will never be effectively argued or settled (just as they weren't in 1861) and more concerned with the reality of the matter which is this:

If any group enters into insurrection, they will be crushed by the federal Army.

Just as they were during the Whiskey Rebellion, Harper's Ferry, and the civil war.

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy worlds, but you know I am right.

You further know that all this talk will never amount to anything since no one wants to try and take on a Bradley full of infantry.

Does this mean we don't get to bomb Texas??

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason.

Plus, Texas has great music and food. We'd miss that if they were gone.

Damn! We were all looking forward to it.

Can we at least bomb Cowboys Stadium??

 

[geauxtohell]

Does this mean we don't get to bomb Texas??

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason.

Plus, Texas has great music and food. We'd miss that if they were gone.

Damn! We were all looking forward to it.

Can we at least bomb Cowboys Stadium??

I'd support that course of action as long as the Cowgirls weren't in it at the time.

 

[rightwinger]

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason.

Plus, Texas has great music and food. We'd miss that if they were gone.

Damn! We were all looking forward to it.

Can we at least bomb Cowboys Stadium??

I'd support that course of action as long as the Cowgirls weren't in it at the time.

Deal!

As long as Jerry Jones is inside

 

[goldcatt]

Damn! We were all looking forward to it.

Can we at least bomb Cowboys Stadium??

I'd support that course of action as long as the Cowgirls weren't in it at the time.

Deal!

As long as Jerry Jones is inside

I can get on board with that.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason

Does this mean that you consider the People of a state as lacking the right to self-determination, or that expressing the belief that such a right is inalienable constitutes treason?

The UN may be weak, but I am certain that any state which passed, by popular vote, a motion to secede would find a lot of allies there. Yes, secession would be a tough row to hoe, but if the alternative is to allow unchecked growth of federal power then I would prefer that to a tyrannical Washington legislature destroying everything I hold dear.

I contend that a strong secession movement would force Washington to curb their abuses of power. The only other option I see is a party dedicated to ousting all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. If such a party grew to the point that it did begin unseating half the incumbents in each election then reform would soon follow, for the only thing I have found incumbents, of both parties, to stand for IS reelection.

 

[rightwinger]

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason

Does this mean that you consider the People of a state as lacking the right to self-determination, or that expressing the belief that such a right is inalienable constitutes treason?

The UN may be weak, but I am certain that any state which passed, by popular vote, a motion to secede would find a lot of allies there. Yes, secession would be a tough row to hoe, but if the alternative is to allow unchecked growth of federal power then I would prefer that to a tyrannical Washington legislature destroying everything I hold dear.

I contend that a strong secession movement would force Washington to curb their abuses of power. The only other option I see is a party dedicated to ousting all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. If such a party grew to the point that it did begin unseating half the incumbents in each election then reform would soon follow, for the only thing I have found incumbents, of both parties, to stand for IS reelection.

Absolutely!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

 

[HUGGY]

No, actually it isn't, per the Supreme Court: Texas vs White

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.

If we really wanted a more perfect union we would give texas and california back to mexico

 

[geauxtohell]

Does this mean that you consider the People of a state as lacking the right to self-determination, or that expressing the belief that such a right is inalienable constitutes treason?

No. I think they lack the right to withdraw from the Union. That says nothing about the right to self determination, which every state has via their own laws and legislators.

The UN may be weak, but I am certain that any state which passed, by popular vote, a motion to secede would find a lot of allies there. Yes, secession would be a tough row to hoe, but if the alternative is to allow unchecked growth of federal power then I would prefer that to a tyrannical Washington legislature destroying everything I hold dear.

The UN has nothing to do with this.

If you want to gamble on the notion that the rest of the nation will allow secessionists to simply leave, then go ahead. It's not like history tells us anything about this notion.

I contend that a strong secession movement would force Washington to curb their abuses of power. The only other option I see is a party dedicated to ousting all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. If such a party grew to the point that it did begin unseating half the incumbents in each election then reform would soon follow, for the only thing I have found incumbents, of both parties, to stand for IS reelection.

So you concede that there is a proper and legal venue for you to address your political grievances? Why not utilize that option?

You guys act like you are completely disenfranchised and have no other options left.

That is far from true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason

Does this mean that you consider the People of a state as lacking the right to self-determination, or that expressing the belief that such a right is inalienable constitutes treason?

The UN may be weak, but I am certain that any state which passed, by popular vote, a motion to secede would find a lot of allies there. Yes, secession would be a tough row to hoe, but if the alternative is to allow unchecked growth of federal power then I would prefer that to a tyrannical Washington legislature destroying everything I hold dear.

I contend that a strong secession movement would force Washington to curb their abuses of power. The only other option I see is a party dedicated to ousting all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation. If such a party grew to the point that it did begin unseating half the incumbents in each election then reform would soon follow, for the only thing I have found incumbents, of both parties, to stand for IS reelection.

Charles Stucker, I contend your statement above is one of the most inane I have ever read.

 

[MaggieMae]

What makes you think Thomas H. Naylor is a Socialist? He's what real Vermonters call a flatlander, who moved to the state for its pristine value, then wants to drive everything according to his terms. Naylor was born in Mississippi, educated in the south, and is a retired eccentric who thinks he's found his "island" -- the State of Vermont.

Second Vermont Republic

Thomas H. Naylor Bio | Second Vermont Republic

I heard the man talking on the news... he sounded like he was presenting socialist solutions. But that may be a bad judgement on my part.

By any objective measure, the Vermont sucession group are socialists... and idiots of the first order.

And you know this how? Because they want to "grow their own things"?? They have no professed political leaning, but Naylor has written and lectured on politics for years. They want to pay no taxes, not even on land they want to occupy, yet expect to use existing resources. They want no centralized government but a "networking" of the people. How is that "Socialism," which calls for a centralized people's government sharing the wealth among all citizens? More akin to a cult in suits, the Second Republic folks don't want to "share" anything except among themselves.

 

[MaggieMae]

Did you mean to use the word secession???

Why all the talk of secession since the Republicans lost the election?

Some of us don't want to live under a communist government that we think Obama wants to create. You probably think its wrong for any citizen to declare their government null but when did people lose the right to create a government that represents their own interest?

The individual and the right to live their life as they please is supreme and supercedes the right of any government to exist.

As long as it isn't illegal, you can already live your life any way you please. Your fear is unfounded and based on a bunch of hysterical assumptions that you've been hoodwinked into believing.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Charles Stucker, I contend your statement above is one of the most inane I have ever read.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot.
Twenty years down the road the minority immigrants brought in by the Democrats have shifted their philosophy and taken control of two thirds of the states, as well as a super-majority of the national legislature. They push through an amendment which relinquishes US sovereignty over their states, but not your state or a few other staunch Democratic places, and makes secession illegal with passage. You are then left with a tremendous national debt, as you are all that remains of the USA, a debt which you can never hope to repay, and the remainder of your and your children’s and grandchildren’s lives will be spent in abject poverty because the rump which remains cannot pay the bill.
Would you want to secede before such an amendment took effect?
Too bad you believe it is illegal.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think every state should leave the union until the federal government gets it act together and quits spending money like it's going out of style, quits giving away so much money to other countries that care little for us except for the money we give them, quits trying to be the playground bully and control the actions of the rest of the world, and quits the cycle of taxing just so they have more money to spend on stupid ideas like building tunnels so turtles who want to cross the road don't get run over by cars or bailing out companies that by right should go bankrupt. If all the states leave the union then the federal government can bail itself out of it troubles and then ask the states nicely if they would like to come back together. This time with a federal government that listens to the people rather than push them around. I forgot to mention too that the federal government should be willing to control it's own borders and keep illegal aliens out too. If not, what's left of the federal government can merge with Mexico and do as they please.

And just how vulnerable would all those new little countries (ex-states) be to threats from known foreign enemies? I can see it now: Bin Laden wakes up one morning and says, "I think I'll send a couple of guys from my California cell to bomb the shit out of Nevada--blow up all that decadant glitter. What's Nevada got to fight back? A few minutemen with rusty AK-47's since they don't have access to the Pentagon's arsenal?"

 

[Charles Stucker]

So you concede that there is a proper and legal venue for you to address your political grievances? Why not utilize that option?

You guys act like you are completely disenfranchised and have no other options left.

Actually there are at least two legal options; secession has the advantage, relative to a No Incumbent Party, of being less dependent on people from other states tossing out their incumbents.
See also my response to an inane poster above for putting the shoe on the other foot.

 

[Charles Stucker]

And just how vulnerable would all those new little countries (ex-states) be to threats from known foreign enemies? I can see it now: Bin Laden wakes up one morning and says, "I think I'll send a couple of guys from my California cell to bomb the shit out of Nevada--blow up all that decadant glitter. What's Nevada got to fight back? A few minutemen with rusty AK-47's since they don't have access to the Pentagon's arsenal?"

Possibly far less vulnerable as the incentive, US intervention in the Middle East, would no longer apply to those regions. Every action they take across the moat (known as either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean depending on the coast) has a huge overhead, and even Bin Laden prioritizes his budget.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

You only hear this kind of illogical talk when Democrats are in power, because Democrats always want to DO something with taxes, while Republicans cut taxes but spend anyway in mysterious ways that the average joe never benefits from. But it's only the "cut taxes" part that gets their attention.

 

[Annie]

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.

What is sucession?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nonsense. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the states agreed to that as they joined.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Nonsense. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the states agreed to that as they joined.

Yes, and the Constitution does not forbid them from seceding if they believe being in the Union is against their best interests. The federal government has to follow the Constitution too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nonsense. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the states agreed to that as they joined.

Yes, and the Constitution does not forbid them from seceding if they believe being in the Union is against their best interests. The federal government has to follow the Constitution too.

A state could not secede without violating Constitutional and federal law which states are prohibited from doing by the Supremacy clause.