Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[ihopehefails]

The constitution strictly says that the federal government may only dictate to a state about what it can do when the constitution says they can about things that are prohibited to them. All other powers are reserved for the state and the last time I checked there is nothing in the constitution that says a state can't depart.

I don't think that states should leave but it is still a right that they have which makes the union a voluntary union of states that can leave and stay as they please. The civil war did not alter the constitution with new amendments forbidding each state from leaving. It only made the idea of leaving unthinkable because we know their would be a war where any state that wants to leave will be crushed by the US armed forces. This situation is not the path to freedom but to tyranny of the federal government because how can you say each state enjoys a status of being free if the federal government interferes with their own domestic affairs and forbids them from forming their own federation with other states or countries for that matter.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's really hard to take serious a thread where the title betrays gross ignorance. I am guessing the rest of the thread will go this way.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Did you mean to use the word secession???

 

[nodoginnafight]

or are you claiming it is the right of each state to declare their own heir to the throne?

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe it means every resident has the right of a blow job, or "suck session."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The OP is correct. Secession is a legitimate right of the states.

 

[Elutherian]

I agree.

The Federal Republic was a voluntary union between the states. Secession is the very principle unerlying the theory of social contract. Without the act of seceding political connection with Great Britain, we wouldn't have become an independant nation.

 

[Mister T]

Did you mean to use the word secession???

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

 

[Elutherian]

Did you mean to use the word secession???

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

Hell, I've been talking about secession since Clinton got a blowjob. It ain't got nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, the Vermont secession movement is run by a devout socialist. It's about being able to opt out... no violence, just peacefully getting the hell out.

 

[MaggieMae]

Did you mean to use the word secession???

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

Hell, I've been talking about secession since Clinton got a blowjob. It ain't got nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, the Vermont secession movement is run by a devout socialist. It's about being able to opt out... no violence, just peacefully getting the hell out.

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

 

[Elutherian]

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

Hell, I've been talking about secession since Clinton got a blowjob. It ain't got nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.

For instance, the Vermont secession movement is run by a devout socialist. It's about being able to opt out... no violence, just peacefully getting the hell out.

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

The OP is correct. Secession is a legitimate right of the states.

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The OP is correct. Secession is a legitimate right of the states.

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

Where's the constitutional amendment making it illegal?

 

[Elutherian]

The OP is correct. Secession is a legitimate right of the states.

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

If it ain't a right, then the theory of social contract just got reversed. If there's no voluntary union, that means it's a union based on the threat of violence. If you try and leave, the Federal Government kick the sh*t out of you!

Sounds like the British when we tried to peacefully secede in the American Revolution.

 

[The Rabbi]

The OP is correct. Secession is a legitimate right of the states.

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.

 

[Elutherian]

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.

Well then would you mind telling me why nobody bothered telling that to any of the states before the civil war.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The preamble gives no power to the federal government and takes away no powers from the states. It's simply a general statement of why they crafted the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.

If you are talking about TX and you live there, please leave. Thank you.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The preamble gives no power to the federal government and takes away no powers from the states. It's simply a general statement of why they crafted the Constitution.

Sez you. The union was meant to be in perpetuity. More perfect can't get any clearer than that in intent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No amendment required. It's there in the constitution already. Look at the words "more perfect union" in the preamble.

The preamble gives no power to the federal government and takes away no powers from the states. It's simply a general statement of why they crafted the Constitution.

Sez you. The union was meant to be in perpetuity. More perfect can't get any clearer than that in intent.

Yes, it can. They meant a "more perfect" or better union than the one they had under the Articles of Confederation.