Where do you stand on State succession?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, hard work scares me. That's why I want to give up. I like snarky comments that address nothing that I said, they add so much to the discussion.

Secession is a cowardly act of the defeated.

No it's not! Sucession is a brave act of self governance!

Surrender to TYRANNY is cowardly!

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

 

[kaz]

Then work to change it and stop being a whiney pussy

tapatalk post

Whine? I insulted you, bitch. Buy a dictionary. And take your dildo out of your ass and focus, I already answered it by asking you why do I care what the socialists want to do to themselves? Why do I want to save them? I want to live in a free country, I don't give a rip about getting socialists to take care of themselves. I want to live where people want to be free.

So you would cause a war because liberals live in ny?

tapatalk post

Strawman

 

[thanatos144]

Whine? I insulted you, bitch. Buy a dictionary. And take your dildo out of your ass and focus, I already answered it by asking you why do I care what the socialists want to do to themselves? Why do I want to save them? I want to live in a free country, I don't give a rip about getting socialists to take care of themselves. I want to live where people want to be free.

So you would cause a war because liberals live in ny?

tapatalk post

Strawman

Reality.

tapatalk post

 

[Contumacious]

Secession is a cowardly act of the defeated.

No it's not! Sucession is a brave act of self governance!

Surrender to TYRANNY is cowardly!

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;


free (fr&#275
adj. fre·er, fre·est

2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.

in·de·pen·dent (ĭn′dĭ-pĕn′dənt)
adj.
1. self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Secession is a cowardly act of the defeated.

No it's not! Sucession is a brave act of self governance!

Surrender to TYRANNY is cowardly!

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

As always, you can't point to any language in the document that actually indicates secession is unconstitutional. In fact, the 10th Amendment would indicate it is explicitely constitutional.

However, you will bleat your usual "Texas vs White" pabulum in another failed attempt to defend your idiotic position.

 

[bripat9643]

Contumacious has absolutely no evidence that the union was not indivisible.

It is solely his belief, such as bripat's belief, and assertion that such is so.

paperview's objective facts and evidence for years have shown the idiocy of the two who can't give up being idiots on the subject.

You have no proof that it was. In logic, no one is obligated to prove a negative.

You have been provided incontestable objective evidence that your beliefs on these matters are wrong.

That you don't accept it means nothing: you will always be wrong if you hold your silly beliefs.

No one has provided diddly squat that can't be refuted in two sentences.

 

[Knightfall]

I'm surprised to see the poll two to one for the right of seccession. Who knew?

There was no option that really spoke to my view. I believe it is a state's right, but I am not eager for it. I think it would be dangerous to have the United States broken into two or more smaller countries for a multitude of reasons that are not worth pursuing in this discussion, but if given a straight up decision of staying as is or leaving for a system more closely resembling the government of the Constitution, I'd leave.

As for why I think seccession is the right of any State, there are two reasons. First, I find the idea that the Founding Fathers who had to fight a war to gain their own independence would have created a system wherein you would be locked into it and have no right to peacefully leave absolutely laughable. The idea that people must continue to be in bonds to a government which goes against their own principles and no longer represents their interests goes against the very foundation principle that the government gets it authority from the consent of the governed. I could go on with this train of thought for awhile explaining exactly how it is inconsistent with every principle of the Founding Fathers, but why belabor this self-evident point?

Second, the only alternative to the right of secession is to grant the Federal government a right which was never given to it in the Constitution. Since the Federal government has only certain specified areas of authority, anything not spelled out in the Constitution as the power of the Federal Government is something that the Federal Government is not allowed to do. I don't see any provision in the Constitution that says a state cannot peacefully leave the Union, so it should be allowed.

Well said. I agree that it should be a state right, however I'd lean towards not seceding.

Although I do agree that it should be a state right to secede, the problem that could arise (besides the Federal government not allowing it) is partitioning of the state. Nothing in the constitution says that a state can't be partitioned if it secedes from the union. Of course the new state would implement a constitution of it's own, and could add this clause. However, civil unrest would be a real possibility, especially during attempts to partition the state. I could envision this scenario in states that are majority Republican, but have urban areas that are Democrat. The urban areas would attempt to hold referendums to secede from the independent state and remain a part of the United states. It would be chaos.

I hadn't considered partitioning. That would be a mess. I suppose the easiest way to fix that scenario would be to add a "No partitioning of the state allowed for the next twenty years," or something to the referendum to secede, but yeah, it would be a mess. I wonder what kept the United States from erupting into all out Civil War amongst the colonists when we seceded from Britain. I know there were loyalists, but its a bit surprising we never hear of mass stirrings up for the crown after the war. Perhaps those movements were there and I'm just ignorant of it.

It would probably be easy to move more Conservative folks to the big cities and flip them quickly too though that's the kind of political games I dislike.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Contumacious has absolutely no evidence that the union was not indivisible.

It is solely his belief, such as bripat's belief, and assertion that such is so.

paperview's objective facts and evidence for years have shown the idiocy of the two who can't give up being idiots on the subject.

You have no proof that it was. In logic, no one is obligated to prove a negative.

You have been provided incontestable objective evidence that your beliefs on these matters are wrong.

That you don't accept it means nothing: you will always be wrong if you hold your silly beliefs.

Jakethefake-to-English translation: "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!"

 

[Jarlaxle]

No it's not! Sucession is a brave act of self governance!

Surrender to TYRANNY is cowardly!

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;


free (fr&#275
adj. fre·er, fre·est

2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.

in·de·pen·dent (ĭn′dĭ-pĕn′dənt)
adj.
1. self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

He is uninterested in facts.

 

[SwimExpert]

BTW, The silence of the Constitution on this leaves it up to the individual States, according to the 10th Amendment.

One of the tenth amendment nuts.

Listen, you are waaaaaaaay off on the tenth amendment and how it applies. The amendment reserves to states those things which were previously rights of the states. Since the states never had a unilateral right to secede from the the union, the tenth amendment does not reserve such a right to the states.

 

[bripat9643]

BTW, The silence of the Constitution on this leaves it up to the individual States, according to the 10th Amendment.

One of the tenth amendment nuts.

Listen, you are waaaaaaaay off on the tenth amendment and how it applies. The amendment reserves to states those things which were previously rights of the states. Since the states never had a unilateral right to secede from the the union, the tenth amendment does not reserve such a right to the states.

Another of your claims with no visible means of support.

 

[Contumacious]

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States;


free (fr&#275
adj. fre·er, fre·est

2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.

in·de·pen·dent (ĭn′dĭ-pĕn′dənt)
adj.
1. self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

He is uninterested in facts.

He is conflicted by interest.

If the states are allow to secede, taxpayers and producers will follow, thereby seriously jeopardizing his welfare payments and his Obama Hellcare coverage.

.

 

[thanatos144]

God the idiots who don't heed history.

tapatalk post

 

[SwimExpert]

BTW, The silence of the Constitution on this leaves it up to the individual States, according to the 10th Amendment.

One of the tenth amendment nuts.

Listen, you are waaaaaaaay off on the tenth amendment and how it applies. The amendment reserves to states those things which were previously rights of the states. Since the states never had a unilateral right to secede from the the union, the tenth amendment does not reserve such a right to the states.

Another of your claims with no visible means of support.

So you really mean to argue that the states had a right to secede from the union before the union existed?

 

[rdean]

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?

If we can stop Red States from bleeding Blue States dry, I think that would be a good thing. 150 years of conservative policies in Red States and the divide between the rich and the poor is enormous. Huge numbers have no health care and are in poverty. Trashing environmental laws has turned a number of those states into cess pools.

I'm afraid if they were allowed to secede, they would attempt to start up slavery again.

 

[BobPlumb]

Secession is a cowardly act of the defeated.

No it's not! Sucession is a brave act of self governance!

Surrender to TYRANNY is cowardly!

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

If the people of a state (say 99% of them) decide that they want to succeed from the union of the United States, doesn't the constitutionality of the decision become a moot point from the viewpoint of the state? Secession would mean that the state would no longer be bound by the US Constitution.

If the state used peaceful means to carry out seceding from the rest of the states, I don't think it would result in a civil war. People simply would not have the stomach for that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No it's not! Sucession is a brave act of self governance!

Surrender to TYRANNY is cowardly!

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

If the people of a state (say 99% of them) decide that they want to succeed from the union of the United States, doesn't the constitutionality of the decision become a moot point from the viewpoint of the state? Secession would mean that the state would no longer be bound by the US Constitution.

If the state used peaceful means to carry out seceding from the rest of the states, I don't think it would result in a civil war. People simply would not have the stomach for that.

When a state enters the Union, it also enters into an agreement not only with all the other states, but with all the citizens of the Union, and may not violate that agreement absent the consent of all the citizens of all the states:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Texas v. White | LII / Legal Information Institute

We must remember that one is first and foremost a citizen of the United States, and a resident of his state second; the constitutionality of the decision to ‘secede’ is not moot because the Constitution is a relationship between the people and their Founding Document, not the states – a relationship the states may not interfere with:

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States."

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

What would be moot, therefore, is the desire of 99 percent of a given state’s population to ‘secede,’ again, absent the consent of their fellow American citizens.

 

[bripat9643]

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ might indeed be cowardly but it is in fact un-Constitutional, rendering the premise of the thread moot.

And to perceive that ‘tyranny’ exists anywhere in the United States is paranoid idiocy.

If the people of a state (say 99% of them) decide that they want to succeed from the union of the United States, doesn't the constitutionality of the decision become a moot point from the viewpoint of the state? Secession would mean that the state would no longer be bound by the US Constitution.

If the state used peaceful means to carry out seceding from the rest of the states, I don't think it would result in a civil war. People simply would not have the stomach for that.

When a state enters the Union, it also enters into an agreement not only with all the other states, but with all the citizens of the Union, and may not violate that agreement absent the consent of all the citizens of all the states:

Horseshit. There isn't a shred of credible evidence to support that claim.

[

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Texas v. White | LII / Legal Information Institute

So says Salmon P. Chase, handpicked stooge of Abraham Lincoln who provided him with financing to prosecute the war. According to the hack Chase:

"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

Documented support for the alleged "perpetual and indissoluble relation" or any requirement of "the consent of the States" for revocation (secession) weren't produced by the court at that time, nor have they since been produced.

Two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union, or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

That's only one of the things wrong with the Texas Vs White decision.

[We must remember that one is first and foremost a citizen of the United States, and a resident of his state second; the constitutionality of the decision to ‘secede’ is not moot because the Constitution is a relationship between the people and their Founding Document, not the states – a relationship the states may not interfere with: .

Bullshit. The states existed prior to the Constitution, which is an agreement between the states. Texas Vs White certainly doesn't prove otherwise, so your claim has nothing to stand on.

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States."

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

What would be moot, therefore, is the desire of 99 percent of a given state’s population to ‘secede,’ again, absent the consent of their fellow American citizens.

That's just another hack decision. It's utterly baseless.

 

[Kosh]

Well the far left wants the US to be more like Europe so each state should become it's country and then join a political union to inflate the US currency.

 

[Politico]

The states cannot secede.