Where do you stand on State succession?

Do you support the right of States to succeed from the Union?


  • Total voters
    72

jon_berzerk

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
31,402
Reaction score
7,351
Points
1,130
False. The 10th amendment reserves the original powers of the states, prior to the ratification of the constitution. It does not grant to the states any power whatsoever. It does not grant to the states any power that did not exist before. It is impossible for the states to have enjoyed a power to secede from the union before the ratification of the constitution. The Articles of Confederation declared that the union were perpetual. And prior to that, the union did not exist.
any say congress would have is if the state

wanted to be another state within the union
Why do you say that?
because that is a power granted to congress
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
123,236
Reaction score
17,747
Points
2,180
If Texas seceded, we wouldn't have to build a wall around it. Like East Germany, any conservative nation-state would quickly build a wall to keep its people in, to stop them from fleeing to a democracy.

They'd especially need to keep the slaves controlled. Though they'd call them "perpetual contractees" or something like that, and declare that, in accordance with libertarian principles, those people "voluntarily" sold themselves into eternal servitude to TheCompany, so the eternal servitude is totally acceptable in the name of economic liberty.

Me, I'd feel morally obligated to move to a conservative state, so I could get an Underground Railroad type thing going. I have no troubles with passing for conservative when I want to.
You don't know jack shit about libertarian or conservative principles, moron.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
123,236
Reaction score
17,747
Points
2,180
This gives the States Authority to Secede if they so chose:

AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
False. The 10th amendment reserves the original powers of the states, prior to the ratification of the constitution. It does not grant to the states any power whatsoever. It does not grant to the states any power that did not exist before. It is impossible for the states to have enjoyed a power to secede from the union before the ratification of the constitution. The Articles of Confederation declared that the union were perpetual. And prior to that, the union did not exist.
Bullshit. It reserves all powers to the states not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.

Your interpretation is novel, and is nowhere supported by case law or any historical document.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
The right to withdraw was not addressed directly for a reason. If it was denied the Constitution would never have been ratified. Even though the majority favored the right to withdraw, some States wanted it to be denied and if it was openly addressed they would not have ratified the Document.
That is one theory.

Another, which explains why it wasn't directly addressed, and the one I endorse, is that all the States took it for granted that they could withdraw if they were being abused by a Tyrannical Federal Government. (percieved is real to the perciever) This one fits the facts!
That doesn't fit the facts at all. It's nothing but an ad hoc explanation to fit the conclusion you desire.

The states entered into a perpetual union. When the structure of the federal government proved too weak and was leading to it's potential collapse, the states ratified the constitution "in order to create a more perfect union," which created a new structure for the federal government and strengthened the bond between the several states. Those are the facts.
 

Iceweasel

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2013
Messages
43,343
Reaction score
6,424
Points
1,870
Location
Washington State
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.
Capitalism caused poverty? You don't read much. Do you even know where the blue states get their food from? Those rural roads serve a purpose.
 

Jarlaxle

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
16,521
Reaction score
1,545
Points
205
Location
New England
If Texas seceded, we wouldn't have to build a wall around it. Like East Germany, any conservative nation-state would quickly build a wall to keep its people in, to stop them from fleeing to a democracy.

They'd especially need to keep the slaves controlled. Though they'd call them "perpetual contractees" or something like that, and declare that, in accordance with libertarian principles, those people "voluntarily" sold themselves into eternal servitude to TheCompany, so the eternal servitude is totally acceptable in the name of economic liberty.

Me, I'd feel morally obligated to move to a conservative state, so I could get an Underground Railroad type thing going. I have no troubles with passing for conservative when I want to.
You truly are remarkably stupid.
 

JWBooth

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
9,947
Reaction score
2,076
Points
255
Location
Fredonia Republic
If Texas seceded, we wouldn't have to build a wall around it. Like East Germany, any conservative nation-state would quickly build a wall to keep its people in, to stop them from fleeing to a democracy.

They'd especially need to keep the slaves controlled. Though they'd call them "perpetual contractees" or something like that, and declare that, in accordance with libertarian principles, those people "voluntarily" sold themselves into eternal servitude to TheCompany, so the eternal servitude is totally acceptable in the name of economic liberty.

Me, I'd feel morally obligated to move to a conservative state, so I could get an Underground Railroad type thing going. I have no troubles with passing for conservative when I want to.
Even dumber than RDean's stupid comment.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
123,236
Reaction score
17,747
Points
2,180
The right to withdraw was not addressed directly for a reason. If it was denied the Constitution would never have been ratified. Even though the majority favored the right to withdraw, some States wanted it to be denied and if it was openly addressed they would not have ratified the Document.
That is one theory.

Another, which explains why it wasn't directly addressed, and the one I endorse, is that all the States took it for granted that they could withdraw if they were being abused by a Tyrannical Federal Government. (percieved is real to the perciever) This one fits the facts!
That doesn't fit the facts at all. It's nothing but an ad hoc explanation to fit the conclusion you desire.

The states entered into a perpetual union. When the structure of the federal government proved too weak and was leading to it's potential collapse, the states ratified the constitution "in order to create a more perfect union," which created a new structure for the federal government and strengthened the bond between the several states. Those are the facts.
How ironic. Your theory is "ad hoc." You can't have both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in force simultaneously. One replaced the other. However, that is exactly what your "logic" is saying.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
any say congress would have is if the state

wanted to be another state within the union
Why do you say that?
because that is a power granted to congress
Taking the hyper restrictive approach? There's a few problems with that.

The constitution does not explicitly grant the Congress the power to criminalize actions. Yet murder is illegal under US law. The constitution does not explicitly grant the Congress the power to create, maintain, or fund an Air Force. And yet we have one. The constitution does not explicitly grant the Congress the power to issue resolutions, to allow delegates from territories into the House of Representatives, or to create public holidays. And yet all those things exist. Meanwhile, the constitution makes a point to explicitly forbid certain things from Congress' power.

Clearly the framers understood and intended that there would be certain duties and powers that would be held by Congress, aside from those specifically enumerated. Which is why they included the necessary and proper clause to empower Congress to "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Would you argue that the government of the United States has no power to accept the secession of a state? If it does, then it would lay with Congress do so.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Bullshit. It reserves all powers to the states not delegated by the Constitution to the federal government.
:lol:

If you say a false thing a million times, it is still false.

Your interpretation is novel, and is nowhere supported by case law or any historical document.
:lol:

Actually, it is. You've even been provided with examples. You you said you don't care. Stick with "I don't care." It's a stupid argument, but at least you'd be consistent.
 

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
How ironic. Your theory is "ad hoc." You can't have both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution in force simultaneously. One replaced the other. However, that is exactly what your "logic" is saying.
:lol:

No it's not. The Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union between the states. The constitution did not dissolve that union in order to create a new one. It perfected that union. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. You just don't want to accept it.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,196
Reaction score
11,881
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
Again, we are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of our respective states second, a fact that cannot be changed by a single state via ‘secession.’

My state of residence cannot take from me against my will my American citizenship through ‘secession,’ nor can it compel me to ‘move’ to another state to ‘retain’ my citizenship, as my state of residence exists in a perpetual Union with the other states and other American citizens.

If one reflects upon these facts in a rational and objective manner, he’ll understand the errant idiocy that is the notion of a single state ‘seceding.’
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,373
Reaction score
1,953
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
see the right desire a fractioning of our country?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


They do not love democracy
Nope.

Neither did the Founding Fathers .

In a democracy rights depend on majorities. Now that the Parasitic Faction is a super majority taxpayers and producers have been reduced to slaves.

.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
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 you can't spell it correctly. You shouldn't be able to do it.

You will not succeed in your endeavors to secede.

I am sure I am not the first person to make this observation in this thread.

"This message brought to you by the annual "geauxtohell check in". To all my friends, I hope you are well. To all my enemies; go fuck yourselves."
 

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Messages
19,373
Reaction score
1,953
Points
280
Location
Adjuntas, PR , USA
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 you can't spell it correctly. You shouldn't be able to do it.

You will not succeed in your endeavors to secede.

"
We know. But

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.



.
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
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 you can't spell it correctly. You shouldn't be able to do it.

You will not succeed in your endeavors to secede.

I am sure I am not the first person to make this observation in this thread.

"This message brought to you by the annual "geauxtohell check in". To all my friends, I hope you are well. To all my enemies; go fuck yourselves."
You are correct, you were not the first to point out the obvious. What can I say? I was a math major. I like it personally, the trolls are self identifying.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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 you can't spell it correctly. You shouldn't be able to do it.

You will not succeed in your endeavors to secede.

I am sure I am not the first person to make this observation in this thread.

"This message brought to you by the annual "geauxtohell check in". To all my friends, I hope you are well. To all my enemies; go fuck yourselves."
You are correct, you were not the first to point out the obvious. What can I say? I was a math major. I like it personally, the trolls are self identifying.

Another clown who wants to blame everybody else for his/her/its own mistake. :lol:

Face it, you took a silly proposition and made it sillier. Then you wanna pour the whine when we take it in the silly spirits it's already swimming in.

But that's the fault of "trolls". Riiiiight. :lmao:
 
OP
kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
54,640
Reaction score
5,556
Points
1,840
Location
Independence Hall
If you can't spell it correctly. You shouldn't be able to do it.

You will not succeed in your endeavors to secede.

I am sure I am not the first person to make this observation in this thread.

"This message brought to you by the annual "geauxtohell check in". To all my friends, I hope you are well. To all my enemies; go fuck yourselves."
You are correct, you were not the first to point out the obvious. What can I say? I was a math major. I like it personally, the trolls are self identifying.

Another clown who wants to blame everybody else for his/her/its own mistake. :lol:

Face it, you took a silly proposition and made it sillier. Then you wanna pour the whine when we take it in the silly spirits it's already swimming in.

But that's the fault of "trolls". Riiiiight. :lmao:
If you ever want to come in from the playground, adult repartee is a lot more interesting.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
You are correct, you were not the first to point out the obvious. What can I say? I was a math major. I like it personally, the trolls are self identifying.

Another clown who wants to blame everybody else for his/her/its own mistake. :lol:

Face it, you took a silly proposition and made it sillier. Then you wanna pour the whine when we take it in the silly spirits it's already swimming in.

But that's the fault of "trolls". Riiiiight. :lmao:
If you ever want to come in from the playground, adult repartee is a lot more interesting.
How would you know that?

'Scuse me if I refuse to take seriously threads started by clowns who are not only liars but also illiterate, and then want to blame everybody else. :eusa_hand:
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
27,149
Reaction score
3,779
Points
280
Location
Sty
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?
A 3/4 majority of States should be allowed to kick any State off the island, so to speak. Forced secession. We should do California now before it is too late.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top