'Is Secession Legal?'

[NYcarbineer]

[]
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.

The Supremacy clause makes secession illegal. A state is prohibited from making laws that conflict with federal law; it would be impossible to secede without doing so.

 

[Missourian]

As for the OP...is it legal to succeed?

I doubt it.

I also doubt if it matters whether it is legal or not.

As a theoretical exercise, if Texas were to succeed, who would stop them?

We can only get 40% of Americans to take one day out of every 1460 to go vote for the leader of our country.

Do you really believe the US could raise an army to attack fellow Americans?

We aren't the nation we were in the 1800's or even the people we were in 1940.

We are weak and soft and fat and lazy.

So the best course of action is to hope the Union holds together cuz if I were a betting man, I'd take Texans over New Englanders every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[Liability]

[]
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.

The Supremacy clause makes secession illegal. A state is prohibited from making laws that conflict with federal law; it would be impossible to secede without doing so.

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be 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.

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

 

[Gunny]

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.

The US would actually be better off without you nanny-staters in it.

 

[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

Imagine the joy the mexicans would have if Texas really did leave the united states.......how fun would that be to see how fast Mexico would come up, delcare war on Texas and take it back.

How ******* great would that be.

Keep in mind most Texans love the USA and would choose to remain a US Citizen. However, those traitorous Texans who would willingly abandon their country just because they lost an election would be easy pickings for the Mexicans.

 

[Missourian]

Here is a fact everyone knows, but no one gives much thought to...except Obama and Napolitano...ever wonder why US Veterans were put on the Terrorist Threat Assessment?

Even more important than these general demographic shifts is the change wrought by the end of the draft in 1973. Until then, military service was distributed pretty evenly across regions. But that is no longer true.

The residential patterns for current veterans and the patterns of state-level contributions of new recruits to the all-volunteer military have a distinct geographic tilt. And tellingly, the map of military service since 1973 aligns closely with electoral maps distinguishing red from blue states.

In 1969, the 10 states with the highest percentage of veterans were, in order: Wyoming, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, California, Oregon, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Connecticut and Illinois.

In 2007, the 10 states with the highest percentage of post-Vietnam-era veterans were, in order: Alaska, Virginia, Hawaii, Washington, Wyoming, Maine, South Carolina, Montana, Maryland and Georgia.

Over the past four decades, which states have disappeared from the top 10? California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois, all big blue states that have voted Democratic in the past five presidential elections.

These states and another blue state, New York, which ranked 12th in 1969, are among the 10 states with the lowest number of post-Vietnam vets per capita. New Jersey comes in 50th of the 50 states; just 1 percent of current residents have served in the military since Vietnam.

This is not simply an issue of people retiring to warm states such as Florida, Georgia and Texas. A 2005 Heritage Foundation analysis of Defense Department and census data on enlistments found that Montana, Alaska, Florida, Wyoming, Maine and Texas send the most young people per capita to the military.

The states with the lowest contribution rates? Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York.

What's clear from the data is that a major national institution, the U.S. military, now has tighter connections to some regions of the country than others.

<SNIP>

I spotted the link between military service and regional partisan divisions when I was researching not military history but Internet political communication.

After spending time on political Web sites of the right and left, I noticed that posts on right-leaning sites often employed military lingo -- habits of developing monikers and jingles and of using the vocabulary of military tactics and strategy.

Left-leaning sites, in contrast, mostly lacked any easily recognizable features of military language.

This is one sign that our public sphere already suffers from a division between military and non-military cultures.

The division is not trivial, and without institutional change it is likely to be durable.

Red-state Army? | Plain Dealer Opinion Archive Site - cleveland.com
​

 

[NYcarbineer]

[]
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.

The Supremacy clause makes secession illegal. A state is prohibited from making laws that conflict with federal law; it would be impossible to secede without doing so.

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be 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.

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

Try making a point concisely and coherently, instead of pretending you have one. You're not new at this; you know that kind of bullshit doesn't fly.

 

[Liability]

The Supremacy clause makes secession illegal. A state is prohibited from making laws that conflict with federal law; it would be impossible to secede without doing so.

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be 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.

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

Try making a point concisely and coherently, instead of pretending you have one. You're not new at this; you know that kind of bullshit doesn't fly.

So it did fly over your head

or you are just back to being dishonest about recognizing the undeniable import of the highlighted words.

Either way, it kinda figures.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Imagine the joy the mexicans would have if Texas really did leave the united states.......how fun would that be to see how fast Mexico would come up, delcare war on Texas and take it back.

How ******* great would that be.

Keep in mind most Texans love the USA and would choose to remain a US Citizen. However, those traitorous Texans who would willingly abandon their country just because they lost an election would be easy pickings for the Mexicans.

Texas left Mexico because Mexico abolished slavery.

Texas left the Union over slavery.

The United States elects a black president, Texans start spouting off about seceding again.

...I seem to detect a pattern there.

 

[rdean]

You Republicans crack me up. You constantly complain that your "rights" have been violated and the government has "taken over". You can't name a single way you life has changed. Unless it's because you don't have a job. But that was Republican policies.

Why do you guys get so upset when thinking and rational people call you idiots?

An idiot is a stupid person with a mental age below three years, while a moron is a stupid person with a mental age of between seven to twelve years. Hmmm, I can see why that might make you angry.

Maybe you would prefer one of these:

blockhead, bonehead, cretin, dimwit, dork, dumbbell, dunce, fool, ignoramus, imbecile, jerk, kook, muttonhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, out to lunch, pinhead, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually, the Supremacy clause itself acknowledges the very basis for nullification and, by extension, secession. Since you brought it up -- but lack the guts to ask why my answer is correct -- I'll just go ahead and tell you. No, I'll just give you a tiny little HINT, instead.

The Supremacy Clause reads as follows:

10 to 1 that little tiny hint sails clear over your head at mach speeds, carbuncle.

Try making a point concisely and coherently, instead of pretending you have one. You're not new at this; you know that kind of bullshit doesn't fly.

So it did fly over your head

or you are just back to being dishonest about recognizing the undeniable import of the highlighted words.

Either way, it kinda figures.

The highlighted words are irrelevant to my point.

Does anyone here want to make Lardbelly's argument in a concise coherent manner? He seems incapable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I miss the good old days when the wingnuts mercilessly ridiculed the occasional liberal who vowed to leave the country if Republicans were elected, etc.

Now those same wingers want entire states to leave the country.

Remember how idiotic you thought those libs were back in the day? Well, once again you've become what you once mocked.

 

[Douger]

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

If the US were still the greatest country on Earth you might not sound so ignorant. As it is the Patriotic Texans are the ones who would like to see a return to the Constitutional balance between the states and the federal government. It is just treasonous scum Yankees who want to keep big government going.

We have us an honest to god, US hating traitor. Glad to see that most honorable Texans would be repulsed by your opinion of the greatest country on earth.

Which country do you prefer Comrade Stucker? Need I ask?

Do you not hate the US govt ? If you don't, you must be an idiot.
People don't hate " America and Americans"
They hate your piece of shit, corrupt, murderous, government and the corporations they are the whores for.

 

[Liability]

Try making a point concisely and coherently, instead of pretending you have one. You're not new at this; you know that kind of bullshit doesn't fly.

So it did fly over your head

or you are just back to being dishonest about recognizing the undeniable import of the highlighted words.

Either way, it kinda figures.

The highlighted words are irrelevant to my point.

Does anyone here want to make Lardbelly's argument in a concise coherent manner? He seems incapable.

LOL.

Highlighting only the fact that you are quite dense.

I knew it would sail over your head.

If the STATES and the people got together to form a Federal government and did so only upon certain conditions, then it should NOT come as a surprise that the Federal Government is obliged to HONOR those conditions for the agreement to remain valid.

Now, having formed a FEDERAL Government, that government having been formed FOR a reason, it also made sense to grant certain powers and authorities TO that Federal Government. Part and parcel of that was a grudging recognition that on those matters and in those areas where the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government, the Federally passed laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION would be the supreme law of the land. (That only means that if Connecticut or some other State or States had a contrary law or treaty, the Federal law would prevail.)

BUT, no such nominal "law" passed by the Federal Government would be the SUPREME law of the land if it failed to be made under the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT. [The whole premise of Judicial Review is founded on the recognition that a law not made in conformity to the mandates of the Constitution and which violates the Constitution is void "ab initio" -- meaning it is not a law at all and never was.]

If the Federal Government went further still, in fact, and refused to abide by the limitations imposed on it in the Constitution, then the implication is that the States could react by withdrawing their agreement to be part of the Federal Government.

Why this is so very difficult for you liberal nimrods to grasp is a serious concern. The concept of "Federalism" is actually part of the delicate checks and blances we carefully crafted at the Founding.

 

[The T]

So it did fly over your head

or you are just back to being dishonest about recognizing the undeniable import of the highlighted words.

Either way, it kinda figures.

The highlighted words are irrelevant to my point.

Does anyone here want to make Lardbelly's argument in a concise coherent manner? He seems incapable.

LOL.

Highlighting only the fact that you are quite dense.

I knew it would sail over your head.

If the STATES and the people got together to form a Federal government and did so only upon certain conditions, then it should NOT come as a surprise that the Federal Government is obliged to HONOR those conditions for the agreement to remain valid.

Now, having formed a FEDERAL Government, that government having been formed FOR a reason, it also made sense to grant certain powers and authorities TO that Federal Government. Part and parcel of that was a grudging recognition that on those matters and in those areas where the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government, the Federally passed laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION would be the supreme law of the land. (That only means that if Connecticut or some other State or States had a contrary law or treaty, the Federal law would prevail.)

BUT, no such nominal "law" passed by the Federal Government would be the SUPREME law of the land if it failed to be made under the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT. [The whole premise of Judicial Review is founded on the recognition that a law not made in conformity to the mandates of the Constitution and which violates the Constitution is void "ab initio" -- meaning it is not a law at all and never was.]

If the Federal Government went further still, in fact, and refused to abide by the limitations imposed on it in the Constitution, then the implication is that the States could react by withdrawing their agreement to be part of the Federal Government.

Why this is so very difficult for you liberal nimrods to grasp is a serious concern. The concept of "Federalism" is actually part of the delicate checks and blances we carefully crafted at the Founding.

So the Admission to the "Fed Club" (if you will), is a Binding Contract of sorts between the States and the 'UNION' with the prmise being contained within the Constitution? (Say er...ummm the 10th Amendment that is so oft overlooked, and abused, even dismissed by unfunded mandates or Fed Law circumventing that amendment)?

 

[Liability]

The highlighted words are irrelevant to my point.

Does anyone here want to make Lardbelly's argument in a concise coherent manner? He seems incapable.

LOL.

Highlighting only the fact that you are quite dense.

I knew it would sail over your head.

If the STATES and the people got together to form a Federal government and did so only upon certain conditions, then it should NOT come as a surprise that the Federal Government is obliged to HONOR those conditions for the agreement to remain valid.

Now, having formed a FEDERAL Government, that government having been formed FOR a reason, it also made sense to grant certain powers and authorities TO that Federal Government. Part and parcel of that was a grudging recognition that on those matters and in those areas where the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government, the Federally passed laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION would be the supreme law of the land. (That only means that if Connecticut or some other State or States had a contrary law or treaty, the Federal law would prevail.)

BUT, no such nominal "law" passed by the Federal Government would be the SUPREME law of the land if it failed to be made under the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT. [The whole premise of Judicial Review is founded on the recognition that a law not made in conformity to the mandates of the Constitution and which violates the Constitution is void "ab initio" -- meaning it is not a law at all and never was.]

If the Federal Government went further still, in fact, and refused to abide by the limitations imposed on it in the Constitution, then the implication is that the States could react by withdrawing their agreement to be part of the Federal Government.

Why this is so very difficult for you liberal nimrods to grasp is a serious concern. The concept of "Federalism" is actually part of the delicate checks and blances we carefully crafted at the Founding.

So the Admission to the "Fed Club" (if you will), is a Binding Contract of sorts between the States and the 'UNION' with the prmise being contained within the Constitution? (Say er...ummm the 10th Amendment that is so oft overlooked, and abused, even dismissed by unfunded mandates or Fed Law circumventing that amendment)?

I think so.

If I enter into a contract that requires the other party to perform certain obligations and mandates that they must do so pursuant to all applicable laws, but they decide not to do some of those obligations or they try to do some of them by breaking the law, would I be bound to that contract?

I think the answer would be an emphatic "no." If they BREACH the contract, the contract may be terminated.

I am not advocating for the termination of the Union.

I am advocating for the Federal Government to abide much more fully to the terms of the Agreement.

 

[The T]

LOL.

Highlighting only the fact that you are quite dense.

I knew it would sail over your head.

If the STATES and the people got together to form a Federal government and did so only upon certain conditions, then it should NOT come as a surprise that the Federal Government is obliged to HONOR those conditions for the agreement to remain valid.

Now, having formed a FEDERAL Government, that government having been formed FOR a reason, it also made sense to grant certain powers and authorities TO that Federal Government. Part and parcel of that was a grudging recognition that on those matters and in those areas where the Constitution gave authority to the Federal Government, the Federally passed laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION would be the supreme law of the land. (That only means that if Connecticut or some other State or States had a contrary law or treaty, the Federal law would prevail.)

BUT, no such nominal "law" passed by the Federal Government would be the SUPREME law of the land if it failed to be made under the terms and conditions of the original AGREEMENT. [The whole premise of Judicial Review is founded on the recognition that a law not made in conformity to the mandates of the Constitution and which violates the Constitution is void "ab initio" -- meaning it is not a law at all and never was.]

If the Federal Government went further still, in fact, and refused to abide by the limitations imposed on it in the Constitution, then the implication is that the States could react by withdrawing their agreement to be part of the Federal Government.

Why this is so very difficult for you liberal nimrods to grasp is a serious concern. The concept of "Federalism" is actually part of the delicate checks and blances we carefully crafted at the Founding.

So the Admission to the "Fed Club" (if you will), is a Binding Contract of sorts between the States and the 'UNION' with the prmise being contained within the Constitution? (Say er...ummm the 10th Amendment that is so oft overlooked, and abused, even dismissed by unfunded mandates or Fed Law circumventing that amendment)?

I think so.

If I enter into a contract that requires the other party to perform certain obligations and mandates that they must do so pursuant to all applicable laws, but they decide not to do some of those obligations or they try to do some of them by breaking the law, would I be bound to that contract?

I think the answer would be an emphatic "no." If they BREACH the contract, the contract may be terminated.

I am not advocating for the termination of the Union.

I am advocating for the Federal Government to abide much more fully to the terms of the Agreement.

Exactly the point. No State in this ecomomy would I think dare to secceed. Fact is too many have signed onto their willingness to take federal Funding at the expense of Other States since many have over-run their budgets.

That is to say they've become DEPENDENT on the Federal tit to keep them solvent (never mind the Fed is insolvent and racked wit DEBT itself)?

It is a SAD state of affairs, is it not?

 

[WillowTree]

Who gives a shit? Illegal seems to be the way to go nowadays. So if a state secedes illegally all of them become illegals and will have instant status in the US OF KKKA.

 

[Gunny]

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

Imagine the joy the mexicans would have if Texas really did leave the united states.......how fun would that be to see how fast Mexico would come up, delcare war on Texas and take it back.

How ******* great would that be.

Keep in mind most Texans love the USA and would choose to remain a US Citizen. However, those traitorous Texans who would willingly abandon their country just because they lost an election would be easy pickings for the Mexicans.

Bear in mind most Texans have a brain. An election has nothing to do with this shit. It has to do with the US Constitution and how leftwingnut freaks can't understand the plain English in it.

And just in case you missed it puss-boy, this country was born from rebellion against tyranny.

Get a ******* clue, huh?

 

[Polk]

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

If the US were still the greatest country on Earth you might not sound so ignorant. As it is the Patriotic Texans are the ones who would like to see a return to the Constitutional balance between the states and the federal government. It is just treasonous scum Yankees who want to keep big government going.

People like Charlie here are some of the biggest hypocrites around. They're always going on and on about Democrats are traitors for not blindly supporting anything the GOP does when they are in power, but the instant they lose an election, they instantly flip and start trashing the country they claim to love so much.