'Is Secession Legal?'

[hvactec]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teKllgeRR6E]YouTube - 'Is Secession Legal?' Part II[/ame]

 

[Vast LWC]

Not since the civil war.

That was pretty much decided in the 1860's.

But hell, I'd love it if the Red states seceded peacefully from the Union... The US would be so much better for it. LOL.

 

[MarcATL]

Rebuplicans, Neo-Cons, what say you of this NONSENSE?

 

[rightwinger]

Whether it is legal or not, Secession in this day and age is not technically possible. Too many functions are performed at the federal level to allow states to pull away and still function idependently. It would be the equivalent of cutting off your head

 

[Charles Stucker]

Whether it is legal or not, Secession in this day and age is not technically possible. Too many functions are performed at the federal level to allow states to pull away and still function idependently. It would be the equivalent of cutting off your head

Actually it is the abuse of power at the federal level which makes secession so attractive.
As there is nothing in the constitution to BAR secession, it is constitutionally legal despite what the federal government would like to claim; despite the attempt by the Supreme court to modify the Constitution by their ruling in White vs Texas.
What would a state truly need to do if they seceded?
They could let all the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients go over to the US side of their border.
They would have little need of a military as the only true threat would be the US and the US is currently heavily committed to other theaters. This is not the 19th century when all the power of the Army was focused on the home front.
And of course they would not have any Federal Debt.
Unless their state currently is in debt at the state level.

Good thing Texas has a balanced budget and a surplus.
We even had that during the oil glut of the mid 80's.
Texas conservatism must be doing something right.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually it is the abuse of power at the federal level which makes secession so attractive.

What 'abuse of power' specifically? What rights have you, personally, specifically been denied?

As there is nothing in the constitution to BAR secession, it is constitutionally legal despite what the federal government would like to claim; despite the attempt by the Supreme court to modify the Constitution by their ruling in White vs Texas.

The legality of an issue is the purview of the supreme court, barring specific legislation on said issue.

The Supreme Court in no way attempted to "Modify the Constitution", they interpreted the Constitution, which is their job.

On order to make secession "legal" one would have to overturn the prior decision, or make specific legislation to define legal secession.

Since neither of these instances has occurred, secession is illegal, as defined by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

What would a state truly need to do if they seceded?
They could let all the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients go over to the US side of their border.

No, they could not, after all that would be illegal immigration. We'd send 'em right back to you.

They would have little need of a military as the only true threat would be the US and the US is currently heavily committed to other theaters. This is not the 19th century when all the power of the Army was focused on the home front.

Unless of course one of several countries decided that the seceded state would be a nice fat target. And the US would have no reason to step in.

And of course they would not have any Federal Debt.
Unless their state currently is in debt at the state level.

Of course they would. The US would just send them a bill for all the funding they received over the past few decades that contributed to the debt.

Good thing Texas has a balanced budget and a surplus.
We even had that during the oil glut of the mid 80's.
Texas conservatism must be doing something right.

And it's also right next to Mexico. There's a whole lot of Central and South Americans that would love to gut and loot Texas. Let's see how well ya'll do without the rest of the country. Hmm, maybe you'll become a colony of Venezuela, or Columbia.

And maybe, after a few years of occupation, we'll "Come to your rescue" again, like we did the first time.

 

[theHawk]

And it's also right next to Mexico. There's a whole lot of Central and South Americans that would love to gut and loot Texas. Let's see how well ya'll do without the rest of the country. Hmm, maybe you'll become a colony of Venezuela, or Columbia.

You've never been to a Texas gun show have ya?

 

[rightwinger]

They could let all the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients go over to the US side of their border.

Texas wants to deport grandma???

And Charles Stuckey is complaining about the existing "abuse of power" ?

 

[VaYank5150]

And it's also right next to Mexico. There's a whole lot of Central and South Americans that would love to gut and loot Texas. Let's see how well ya'll do without the rest of the country. Hmm, maybe you'll become a colony of Venezuela, or Columbia.

You've never been to a Texas gun show have ya?

We kicked Texas's ass in the 1860's, we can do it again.

 

[rightwinger]

And it's also right next to Mexico. There's a whole lot of Central and South Americans that would love to gut and loot Texas. Let's see how well ya'll do without the rest of the country. Hmm, maybe you'll become a colony of Venezuela, or Columbia.

You've never been to a Texas gun show have ya?

We kicked Texas's ass in the 1860's, we can do it again.

Mexico could kick their ass today. Let Texas secede, pull away the US Military and yell to Mexico......Come and get it!

 

[Vast LWC]

Mexico could kick their ass today. Let Texas secede, pull away the US Military and yell to Mexico......Come and get it!

And then afterwards we can come and save their asses, like we did in the 1830's.

Causing all the loudmouths in Texas to be served a heaping glass of "Shut the hell up juice".

 

[Liability]

WE seceded from Great Britain. Great Britain sure as hell didn't consider our behavior "legal" at that time.

Some of the Southern States later tried to secede from the United States. Oddly enough, the government of the Union did not recognize that as being "legal," either.

When we did it to Great Britain, we CLAIMED it was legal and since we won, it was legal.

When the Confederacy attempted it, they too claimed it was legal, but since they lost, it was not legal.

Does anyone see the problem here?

The term "legal" itself is, in this context, rather ambiguous.

As an academic matter, I'd suggest that the STATES agreed together to FORM the Union upon certain explicit terms and conditions. It seems probable to me that for a violation of the terms and conditions, the agreement becomes void or voidable. Thus, in purely academic terms, secession strikes me as being perfectly legal.

As a practical matter, what would (almost) any modern day President do if confronted with actions of any set of the States akin to the actions of the Confederate States in Lincoln's time? Purist academic thinking aside, I venture the guess that most modern day Presidents would DENY the legitimacy of any secession effort.

In short, I think Lincoln may very well have gotten it "right" albeit for reasons that are probably not Constitutionally legitimate.

I have to go lie down now. I have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Vast LWC]

By the same token, one could simply say that once a state seceded, they are no longer subject to the laws of the United States, so by the act of seceding they negate the illegality of the act.

How's THAT for cognitive dissonance?

 

[rightwinger]

WE seceded from Great Britain. Great Britain sure as hell didn't consider our behavior "legal" at that time.

Some of the Southern States later tried to secede from the United States. Oddly enough, the government of the Union did not recognize that as being "legal," either.

When we did it to Great Britain, we CLAIMED it was legal and since we won, it was legal.

When the Confederacy attempted it, they too claimed it was legal, but since they lost, it was not legal.

Does anyone see the problem here?

The term "legal" itself is, in this context, rather ambiguous.

As an academic matter, I'd suggest that the STATES agreed together to FORM the Union upon certain explicit terms and conditions. It seems probable to me that for a violation of the terms and conditions, the agreement becomes void or voidable. Thus, in purely academic terms, secession strikes me as being perfectly legal.

As a practical matter, what would (almost) any modern day President do if confronted with actions of any set of the States akin to the actions of the Confederate States in Lincoln's time? Purist academic thinking aside, I venture the guess that most modern day Presidents would DENY the legitimacy of any secession effort.

In short, I think Lincoln may very well have gotten it "right" albeit for reasons that are probably not Constitutionally legitimate.

I have to go lie down now. I have a terrible case of cognitive dissonance.

Who is saying they can't secede? We would welcome Texas reverting to Mexican control. Let them give up all the rights and protections of being a US citizen

 

[JWBooth]

You've never been to a Texas gun show have ya?

We kicked Texas's ass in the 1860's, we can do it again.

Mexico could kick their ass today. Let Texas secede, pull away the US Military and yell to Mexico......Come and get it!

Lets see, the Messicunts last successful military campaign was in early March of 1836. They arent even a big threat to the dope dealers on the south side of the Rio Bravo, much less to anyone north of it.

 

[ihopehefails]

Yes but I wouldn't reccommend it. I can't imagine Arizona having to go it alone against Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

 

[ihopehefails]

Not since the civil war.

That was pretty much decided in the 1860's.

But hell, I'd love it if the Red states seceded peacefully from the Union... The US would be so much better for it. LOL.

How did a war alter the constitution? I've checked it and it says that the only way you can add amendment forbidding the departure of a state is through the process established in article V. It did not mention ass-whippin as a proper method.

 

[rightwinger]

We kicked Texas's ass in the 1860's, we can do it again.

Mexico could kick their ass today. Let Texas secede, pull away the US Military and yell to Mexico......Come and get it!

Lets see, the Messicunts last successful military campaign was in early March of 1836. They arent even a big threat to the dope dealers on the south side of the Rio Bravo, much less to anyone north of it.

We are talking Texans here. Not patriotic Texans, but secessionist who would willingly withdraw from the greatest country on earth.

Yea....Mexico would mop up those ingrates in about a month

 

[Liability]

By the same token, one could simply say that once a state seceded, they are no longer subject to the laws of the United States, so by the act of seceding they negate the illegality of the act.

How's THAT for cognitive dissonance?

Not bad. I'm not sure it works like that though. I mean, we declared that whole independence thing from Great Britain and we unilaterlally thereby said their laws were of no import to us. They dared to disagree and they fought a war over it.

Similarly, the seceeding Confederate States may have articulated that EXACT position, but the North declined their "illegal" claim, the North then drubbed the South and the South's view was seared forever there after as "illegal."

 

[Charles Stucker]

And it's also right next to Mexico. There's a whole lot of Central and South Americans that would love to gut and loot Texas. Let's see how well ya'll do without the rest of the country. Hmm, maybe you'll become a colony of Venezuela, or Columbia.

And maybe, after a few years of occupation, we'll "Come to your rescue" again, like we did the first time.

NO there was no "rescue' the first time. It was a land grab by the US. Texas gained independence when Mexico was far more powerful than Mexico is today and retained that independence until a vote was usurped by land hungry Americans who, abusing the Texas Voting laws of the time, rushed across the border to "vote" Texas into the Union while the long term residents, actual Texicans, voted nearly unanimously to remain independent.

And frankly, I'd rather be around Mexicans than Yankees.