Where do you stand on State succession?

[Rogue 9]

It says "the territory belonging to the United States," not "the territory of the United States." So not only are you ignorant of U.S. history, you're a bald faced liar.

Obviously "territory belonging to the United States" is something separate and distinct from the United States proper. That's basic English grammar.

You're basically just a god damned moron. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.

Projection, much? It says "The Territory or Other Property belonging to the United States," to be specific. I said as much in the thread, so it's hard to see how you think I'm lying about it. If you can't read the English language then I'm very sorry, but the clause clearly says this is a power of Congress, not the states.

Allow me to quote you, moron:

"The territory OF the United States means the land comprising the United States, not the administrative subdivisions of unorganized territories"​

You even quoted yourself in the previous post where you denied saying it.

You are a special kind of stupid. You're so pathetic that you're not even fun to kick around.

Allow me to point out that wasn't a quotation, you moron. Do you see quotation marks around it? I didn't think so.

It says "the territory or other property belonging to the United States," if you want to be pedantic. This still doesn't mean "the territories." It means the territory of the United States, as in the land within its borders. Nothing in the Constitution "shall be so construed as to prejudice the claims of the United States," meaning nothing in the Constitution may be interpreted to allow some jackasses in a statehouse somewhere to abscond with hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory. No law the states can pass may change this because the Constitution is, "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," and everything I just discussed is in the Constitution, and therefore supreme over state ordinance. It's completely black and white, and it says you're wrong. I suggest getting over it.

Edit: Actually, you know what? We can go even further than this. Let us examine what James Madison had to say about secession during the Nullification Crisis:

To William Cabell Rives

Montpr, March 12, 1833

Dear Sir,

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed. It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.

Madison, who largely wrote the damned thing, thought it so preposterous to presume that a state could just break off its engagements consequence-free any more than an individual could that he was flabbergasted he even had to explain it. All the more so because the state governments aren't party to the Constitution anyway; it was established and ratified by the people. Again, Madison:

The compound Govt of the U. S. is without a model, and to be explained by itself, not by similitudes or analogies. The terms Union, Federal, National not to be applied to it without the qualifications peculiar to the system. The English Govt is in a great measure sui generis, and the terms Monarchy used by those who look at the executive head only, and Commonwealth, by those looking at the representative member chiefly, are inapplicable in a strict sense.

A fundamental error lies in supposing the State Governments to be the parties to the Constitutional compact from which the Govt. of the U. S. results.

It is a like error that makes the General Govt and the State governments the parties to the compact, as stated in the 4th. letter of "Algernon Sidney," [Judge Roane]. They may be parties in a judicial controversy, but are not so in relation to the original constitutional compact.

In No. XI of "Retrospects," [by Govr. Giles], in the Richmond Enquirer of Sept. 8, 1829, Mr. Jefferson is misconstrued, or rather mistated, as making the State Govts. & the Govt of the U. S. foreign to each other; the evident meaning, or rather the express language of Mr. J, being "the States are foreign to each other, in the portions of sovereignty not granted, as they were in the entire sovereignty before the grant," and not that the State Govts. and the Govt. of the U. S. are foreign to each other. As the State Govts. participate in appointing the Functionaries of the Genl. Govt. it can no more be said that they are altogether foreign to each other, than that the people of a State & its Govt. are foreign.

The real parties to the constl. compact of the U. S. are the States--that is, the people thereof respectively in their sovereign character, and they alone, so declared in the Resolutions of 98, and so explained in the Report of 99. In these Resolutions as originally proposed, the word alone, wch. guarded agst. error on this point, was struck out, [see printed debates of 98] and led to misconceptions & misreasonings concerning the true character of the pol: [Volume 1, Page 239] system, and to the idea that it was a compact between the Govts. of the States and the Govt. of the U. S. an idea promoted by the familiar one applied to Govts. independent of the people, particularly the British, of [?] a compact between the monarch & his subjects, pledging protection on one side & allegiance on the other.

The plain fact of the case is that the Constitution of the U. S. was created by the people composing the respective States, who alone had the right; that they organized the Govt. into Legis. Ex. & Judicy. departs. delegating thereto certain portions of power to be exercised over the whole, and reserving the other portions to themselves respectively. As these distinct portions of power were to be exercised by the General Govt. & by the State Govts; by each within limited spheres; and as of course controversies concerning the boundaries of their power wd. happen, it was provided that they should be decided by the Supreme Court of the U. S. so constituted as to be as impartial as it could be made by the mode of appointment & responsibility for the Judges.

So again, it is not within the state governments' power to withdraw from the Union, because it was not their power that put them there in the first place.

 

[bripat9643]

Allow me to point out that wasn't a quotation, you moron. Do you see quotation marks around it? I didn't think so.

The contents of the post where you said it are in a quotation box, moron. What do you think those hyperlink tabs that say “

” mean?

Your stupid meter is pegged.

It says "the territory or other property belonging to the United States," if you want to be pedantic. This still doesn't mean "the territories." It means the territory of the United States, as in the land within its borders.

How desperate do you have to be to post something that even the lowest grade moron in this forum can see is false? How many times to do you have to be told that “Territory belonging to the United States” does not equate to “Territory OF the United States?”

Nothing in the Constitution "shall be so construed as to prejudice the claims of the United States," meaning nothing in the Constitution may be interpreted to allow some jackasses in a statehouse somewhere to abscond with hundreds of thousands of square miles of territory. No law the states can pass may change this because the Constitution is, "the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," and everything I just discussed is in the Constitution, and therefore supreme over state ordinance. It's completely black and white, and it says you're wrong. I suggest getting over it.

Quoting additional irrelevant passages doesn’t improve your case, shit-for-brains.

Edit: Actually, you know what? We can go even further than this. Let us examine what James Madison had to say about secession during the Nullification Crisis:

. . . . . . . . Yada, yada, yada . . . . . . . . .

Madison, who largely wrote the damned thing, thought it so preposterous to presume that a state could just break off its engagements consequence-free any more than an individual could that he was flabbergasted he even had to explain it. All the more so because the state governments aren't party to the Constitution anyway; it was established and ratified by the people. Again, Madison:

Madison was called “the father of the Constitution,” but he didn’t write the document. Each clause was discussed and revised endlessly by all the people attending to the Constitutional Convention. Madison didn’t dictate the contents to the assembly, moron. His opinion about what it means is just one opinion.

Your claim that the states aren’t party to the Constitution is absurd considering the fact that the document itself says they are party to the Constitution. Article VII says the following:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."​

What does “the establishment of this Constitution between the states” mean if it’s not an agreement between the states?

 

[thanatos144]

Allow me to point out that wasn't a quotation, you moron. Do you see quotation marks around it? I didn't think so.

The contents of the post where you said it are in a quotation box, moron. What do you think those hyperlink tabs that say “

” mean?

Your stupid meter is pegged.



How desperate do you have to be to post something that even the lowest grade moron in this forum can see is false? How many times to do you have to be told that “Territory belonging to the United States” does not equate to “Territory OF the United States?”



Quoting additional irrelevant passages doesn’t improve your case, shit-for-brains.

Edit: Actually, you know what? We can go even further than this. Let us examine what James Madison had to say about secession during the Nullification Crisis:

. . . . . . . . Yada, yada, yada . . . . . . . . .

Madison, who largely wrote the damned thing, thought it so preposterous to presume that a state could just break off its engagements consequence-free any more than an individual could that he was flabbergasted he even had to explain it. All the more so because the state governments aren't party to the Constitution anyway; it was established and ratified by the people. Again, Madison:

Madison was called “the father of the Constitution,” but he didn’t write the document. Each clause was discussed and revised endlessly by all the people attending to the Constitutional Convention. Madison didn’t dictate the contents to the assembly, moron. His opinion about what it means is just one opinion.

Your claim that the states aren’t party to the Constitution is absurd considering the fact that the document itself says they are party to the Constitution. Article VII says the following:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."​

What does “the establishment of this Constitution between the states” mean if it’s not an agreement between the states?

Your democrat heroes lost. Get over it

tapatalk post

 

[Rogue 9]

Allow me to point out that wasn't a quotation, you moron. Do you see quotation marks around it? I didn't think so.

The contents of the post where you said it are in a quotation box, moron. What do you think those hyperlink tabs that say “[quote]” mean?

Your stupid meter is pegged.

I see you've gone and gotten yourself unable to answer, but in case you read this anyway I'm just going to take this opportunity to point out that the only thing in [quote] tags concerning it that wasn't quoting the Constitution was quoting the dictionary definition of "territory," as it clearly said in the quote tags.

How desperate do you have to be to post something that even the lowest grade moron in this forum can see is false? How many times to do you have to be told that “Territory belonging to the United States” does not equate to “Territory OF the United States?”

That is precisely what it means. Territory = an area of land that belongs to or is controlled by a government. The states are subject to federal law, and are therefore controlled by the United States government. Basic English.

Quoting additional irrelevant passages doesn’t improve your case, shit-for-brains.

Edit: Actually, you know what? We can go even further than this. Let us examine what James Madison had to say about secession during the Nullification Crisis:

. . . . . . . . Yada, yada, yada . . . . . . . . .

Madison, who largely wrote the damned thing, thought it so preposterous to presume that a state could just break off its engagements consequence-free any more than an individual could that he was flabbergasted he even had to explain it. All the more so because the state governments aren't party to the Constitution anyway; it was established and ratified by the people. Again, Madison:

Madison was called “the father of the Constitution,” but he didn’t write the document. Each clause was discussed and revised endlessly by all the people attending to the Constitutional Convention. Madison didn’t dictate the contents to the assembly, moron. His opinion about what it means is just one opinion.

Your claim that the states aren’t party to the Constitution is absurd considering the fact that the document itself says they are party to the Constitution. Article VII says the following:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."​

What does “the establishment of this Constitution between the states” mean if it’s not an agreement between the states?

You may notice it specifies ratification by convention, not legislation. That's the difference between the people of the state and the state government. Which is the entire point.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Constitution does in fact say that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, as it is Congress, not the states, that has the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory.

You seem to not grasp the difference between a federation, and an empire.

States are not U.S. Territory.

 

[Rogue 9]

The Constitution does in fact say that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, as it is Congress, not the states, that has the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory.

You seem to not grasp the difference between a federation, and an empire.

States are not U.S. Territory.

I grasp the difference just fine. The states are by definition U.S. territory, since they are subject to U.S. law, but that doesn't make the United States an empire any more than the various states are imperial powers over their counties (or parishes, in the case of Louisiana).

The thing to understand is that the Constitution of the United States is a governing document established by convention of the people and ratified by the same. It is not a treaty agreement between the state governments and never has been. It truly does defy analogy; there was no government in the world like it before it came about and governments like it now are imitations of it. It is not within the power of a state government to rend the Union; the Constitution was created by we, the people, and only the people can dissolve it. We have not seen fit to do so nor are we likely to, for which I am profoundly thankful.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I grasp the difference just fine. The states are by definition U.S. territory, since they are subject to U.S. law, but that doesn't make the United States an empire any more than the various states are imperial powers over their counties (or parishes, in the case of Louisiana).

You are confused.

The states are not federal territory and are not subject to territorial jurisdiction. States have by the U.S. Constitution, autonomous governments of a Republican structure.

I realize that someone at KOS stumbled upon the Constitution and thinks that Claus2, section 3, of Article IV establishes a totalitarian dictatorship with Obama as unquestioned ruler, but this view is based on ignorance.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

States are not property of the United States, they are autonomous; as guaranteed in the very next section of Article IV, the one DailyKOS somehow missed....

A national park, a military base, and the post office are United States property, the local city in Alabama is not.

The YEARNING by the left for a top down, authoritarian structure, does not render our nation to be such.

The thing to understand is that the Constitution of the United States is a governing document established by convention of the people and ratified by the same. It is not a treaty agreement between the state governments and never has been. It truly does defy analogy; there was no government in the world like it before it came about and governments like it now are imitations of it. It is not within the power of a state government to rend the Union; the Constitution was created by we, the people, and only the people can dissolve it. We have not seen fit to do so nor are we likely to, for which I am profoundly thankful.

It is neither a treaty, nor is it a limitation of the rights of the states and people, as explained in the 9th and 10th.

We are a federation, we established a federal government based upon autonomous states forming a federal system.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Given that this is all masturbation fodder (and not the good, oiled up lesbian type) I wonder which states would collapse of their own weight should they suddenly find themselves on their own.

I think some people think their state is more independent than it really is.

Anyway, I'd still vote for Roseanne for Prez if it were my state that seceded.

 

[deltex1]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

Forget secession...just kick out the goddam fools the LIBTARDS put in.

 

[The T]

I grasp the difference just fine. The states are by definition U.S. territory, since they are subject to U.S. law, but that doesn't make the United States an empire any more than the various states are imperial powers over their counties (or parishes, in the case of Louisiana).

You are confused.

The states are not federal territory and are not subject to territorial jurisdiction. States have by the U.S. Constitution, autonomous governments of a Republican structure.

I realize that someone at KOS stumbled upon the Constitution and thinks that Claus2, section 3, of Article IV establishes a totalitarian dictatorship with Obama as unquestioned ruler, but this view is based on ignorance.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

States are not property of the United States, they are autonomous; as guaranteed in the very next section of Article IV, the one DailyKOS somehow missed....

A national park, a military base, and the post office are United States property, the local city in Alabama is not.

The YEARNING by the left for a top down, authoritarian structure, does not render our nation to be such.

The thing to understand is that the Constitution of the United States is a governing document established by convention of the people and ratified by the same. It is not a treaty agreement between the state governments and never has been. It truly does defy analogy; there was no government in the world like it before it came about and governments like it now are imitations of it. It is not within the power of a state government to rend the Union; the Constitution was created by we, the people, and only the people can dissolve it. We have not seen fit to do so nor are we likely to, for which I am profoundly thankful.

It is neither a treaty, nor is it a limitation of the rights of the states and people, as explained in the 9th and 10th.

We are a federation, we established a federal government based upon autonomous states forming a federal system.

See also Amendment 9, and 10.

 

[The T]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

Forget secession...just kick out the goddam fools the LIBTARDS put in.

Too many leftist fools/moochers found out the Government can take from others to give to them. They're all for it and will vote for the thieves.

 

[WelfareTick]

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea for their state to secede from the union does not have a clue how many benefits each state receives from the federal government. There are a few pros to secession but the cons far outweigh them.

There are no federal benefits that the states don't pay for. Do you imagine the federal government conjures up money out of thin air?

There are also plenty of pros to secession. For one thing, you won't be paying for all the welfare ticks the federal government supports.

 

[Rogue 9]

I grasp the difference just fine. The states are by definition U.S. territory, since they are subject to U.S. law, but that doesn't make the United States an empire any more than the various states are imperial powers over their counties (or parishes, in the case of Louisiana).

You are confused.

The states are not federal territory and are not subject to territorial jurisdiction. States have by the U.S. Constitution, autonomous governments of a Republican structure.

I realize that someone at KOS stumbled upon the Constitution and thinks that Claus2, section 3, of Article IV establishes a totalitarian dictatorship with Obama as unquestioned ruler, but this view is based on ignorance.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

States are not property of the United States, they are autonomous; as guaranteed in the very next section of Article IV, the one DailyKOS somehow missed....

A national park, a military base, and the post office are United States property, the local city in Alabama is not.

The YEARNING by the left for a top down, authoritarian structure, does not render our nation to be such.

The thing to understand is that the Constitution of the United States is a governing document established by convention of the people and ratified by the same. It is not a treaty agreement between the state governments and never has been. It truly does defy analogy; there was no government in the world like it before it came about and governments like it now are imitations of it. It is not within the power of a state government to rend the Union; the Constitution was created by we, the people, and only the people can dissolve it. We have not seen fit to do so nor are we likely to, for which I am profoundly thankful.

It is neither a treaty, nor is it a limitation of the rights of the states and people, as explained in the 9th and 10th.

We are a federation, we established a federal government based upon autonomous states forming a federal system.

I don't read KOS and have no idea what they have to say on the subject. However, I do speak and read the English language and have read the Constitution. The 10th Amendment specifically says that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are retained by the states or the people (though it doesn't say how to determine which goes to which, but that's another topic). Article IV by plain reading says that the power to regulate territory is delegated to the United States. Meanwhile, Article VI by plain reading says that states are prohibited from overriding the Constitution, treaties, and federal law.

The bottom line is that there are lots and lots of things the states can do that the federal government cannot constitutionally interfere in. Breaking up the country is not one of them.

I leave with the wise words of George Washington, in his Circular to the States in 1783:

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country.

On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense and serious consideration of those immediately concerned.

Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.

Four years later he went on to chair the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. You figure it out.

 

[JWBooth]

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea for their state to secede from the union does not have a clue how many benefits each state receives from the federal government. There are a few pros to secession but the cons far outweigh them.

There are no federal benefits that the states don't pay for. Do you imagine the federal government conjures up money out of thin air?

There are also plenty of pros to secession. For one thing, you won't be paying for all the welfare ticks the federal government supports.

Actually that would be the Federal Reserve. Through the purchases of government debt instruments by the FR with the monopoly money they create out of thin air the leviathan is funded.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea for their state to secede from the union does not have a clue how many benefits each state receives from the federal government. There are a few pros to secession but the cons far outweigh them.

There are no federal benefits that the states don't pay for. Do you imagine the federal government conjures up money out of thin air?

There are also plenty of pros to secession. For one thing, you won't be paying for all the welfare ticks the federal government supports.

Actually that would be the Federal Reserve. Through the purchases of government debt instruments by the FR with the monopoly money they create out of thin air the leviathan is funded.

In other words, the federal government steals the money from the states by using counterfeit money to make its purchases.

 

[JWBooth]

There are no federal benefits that the states don't pay for. Do you imagine the federal government conjures up money out of thin air?

There are also plenty of pros to secession. For one thing, you won't be paying for all the welfare ticks the federal government supports.

Actually that would be the Federal Reserve. Through the purchases of government debt instruments by the FR with the monopoly money they create out of thin air the leviathan is funded.

In other words, the federal government steals the money from the states by using counterfeit money to make its purchases.

To the extent that anything is stolen, it is the purchasing power of the consumer as the value of the currency they hold/earn decreases over time.