Where do you stand on State succession?

[kaz]

only in treasonous rightwingnut hack world.

Tell them Ms Jill.

You have a right to the welfare state. To try to take those benefits away from you is outright treasonous.

.

who was talking about benefits? (you know, the ones I don't get except in your fevered imagination)

we're talking about treasonous wingnuts who started talking about secession as soon as the black guy became president.

Right, because we were OK with the white socialists. You're a tool.

 

[Redfish]

Tell them Ms Jill.

You have a right to the welfare state. To try to take those benefits away from you is outright treasonous.

.

who was talking about benefits? (you know, the ones I don't get except in your fevered imagination)

we're talking about treasonous wingnuts who started talking about secession as soon as the black guy became president.

Right, because we were OK with the white socialists. You're a tool.

race is all they have, they know it, we know it, everyone knows it. but they will continue it non stop because its all they have.

 

[Old Rocks]

Tell them Ms Jill.

You have a right to the welfare state. To try to take those benefits away from you is outright treasonous.

.

who was talking about benefits? (you know, the ones I don't get except in your fevered imagination)

we're talking about treasonous wingnuts who started talking about secession as soon as the black guy became president.

Wrong. No one started talking about secession until the Obama Administration started its wholesale disregard of the Constitution. It's become apparent that the Constitution is dead. The Supreme Court demonstrated it is no bulwark against a president or congress that wipes its ass on the Constitution. There's no point in belonging to this fascist union any longer.

Fine. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

 

[Rogue 9]

Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.

Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.

Won't happen.

**** their approval. Who says the federal government would allow it even if they did approve?

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede. Even if it did, I would say the Constitution has no authority to tell states they can't secede.

The theory that state have no right to secede is just plain bunk.

The Constitution does in fact say that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, as it is Congress, not the states, that has the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory.

 

[JWBooth]

As I stated earlier in this and other formats.
I am an ardent supporter of secession, of freedom of association both personal and political; that Jefferson was 100 percent correct in the Declaration when he asserted that a people have the right to dissolve old political bonds and institute new ones.
That said nobody is going anywhere.
Governments at all levels are wedded to the federal teat.
Half the population (or more) collects some kind of check.
The national government troops would crush any attempt.
It doesn't matter what they may think as individuals, they will mindlessly follow orders as they go up against them domestic terrorists. The US military has never failed to support the government when pitted against the citizenry. The New York draft riots and the removal of the bonus army for example.
Waco is a bad example, but it is one that most are familiar with.
50 + days of steady demonization across all media outlets, daily statements by government from the scene and D.C. on what terrible people were held up there.
Any such secession movement would meet a similar fate.
The military, from the individual and unit level on up, will respond as the agents of the state that they are and follow orders. They will willingly follow their orders, be good Americans and crush any rebellion, with as much violence as they are allowed.

 

[bripat9643]

Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.

Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.

Won't happen.

**** their approval. Who says the federal government would allow it even if they did approve?

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede. Even if it did, I would say the Constitution has no authority to tell states they can't secede.

The theory that state have no right to secede is just plain bunk.

The Constitution does in fact say that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, as it is Congress, not the states, that has the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory.

It says no such thing.

 

[Unkotare]

Ol' Johnny Reb: Still losing someone else's war after all this time.

 

[bripat9643]

Ol' Johnny Reb: Still losing someone else's war after all this time.

STFU, scat mouth. No one is interested in your neurosis.

 

[Rogue 9]

The Constitution does in fact say that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, as it is Congress, not the states, that has the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory.

It says no such thing.

We've done this before, you know. I'm perfectly willing to do it again.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:

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.

The power to regulate and dispose of United States territory is explicitly vested in the Congress. Nothing in the Constitution may be interpreted to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States. No state law may contravene federal law or the Constitution. That's the 10th Amendment argument and the method of state ordinance of secession both out the window. There is one, and only one, constitutional method by which a state may leave the Union, and that is by the passage of a constitutional amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution does in fact say that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union, as it is Congress, not the states, that has the power to regulate and dispose of U.S. territory.

It says no such thing.

We've done this before, you know. I'm perfectly willing to do it again.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:

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.

The power to regulate and dispose of United States territory is explicitly vested in the Congress. Nothing in the Constitution may be interpreted to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States. No state law may contravene federal law or the Constitution. That's the 10th Amendment argument and the method of state ordinance of secession both out the window. There is one, and only one, constitutional method by which a state may leave the Union, and that is by the passage of a constitutional amendment.

Yes, we've done this before, and you made a fool of yourself. A state is not a territory, so your premise doesn't apply. The Supremacy clause applies only so long as a state continues to be a member of the union. It's like club rules that say, "so long as you are in this club, you will follow these rules." The minute you quit the club, the rules no longer apply. Your belief that a member can't quit the club is pure idiocy.

 

[JQPublic1]

Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.

Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.

Won't happen.

**** their approval. Who says the federal government would allow it even if they did approve?

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede. Even if it did, I would say the Constitution has no authority to tell states they can't secede.

The theory that state have no right to secede is just plain bunk.

For a state to secede from the Union, all the land within that state would have to be owned by the state. That is not the case. The feds own large tracts of acreage in virtually every state, to include national parks, military bases, etc., etc… Any state wanting to secede would either have to compensate the US government for land owned by the feds or risk being carved up. The entire geography of the state would change dramatically.

Further, when disaster strikes, such as tornados, earthquakes and the like, there would be no obligation to spend federal dollars helping those states who chose to be independent.

I suppose the Monroe Doctrine would preclude armed foreign invasion of any newly formed confederacy of rogue states but that too would be at federal taxpayers expense!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As I stated earlier in this and other formats.
I am an ardent supporter of secession, of freedom of association both personal and political; that Jefferson was 100 percent correct in the Declaration when he asserted that a people have the right to dissolve old political bonds and institute new ones.
That said nobody is going anywhere.
Governments at all levels are wedded to the federal teat.
Half the population (or more) collects some kind of check.
The national government troops would crush any attempt.
It doesn't matter what they may think as individuals, they will mindlessly follow orders as they go up against them domestic terrorists. The US military has never failed to support the government when pitted against the citizenry. The New York draft riots and the removal of the bonus army for example.
Waco is a bad example, but it is one that most are familiar with.
50 + days of steady demonization across all media outlets, daily statements by government from the scene and D.C. on what terrible people were held up there.
Any such secession movement would meet a similar fate.
The military, from the individual and unit level on up, will respond as the agents of the state that they are and follow orders. They will willingly follow their orders, be good Americans and crush any rebellion, with as much violence as they are allowed.

Nonsense.

States cannot ‘secede’ unilaterally because the residents of those states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where the people created the Federal government to codify that citizenship in the Constitution, and where no state can take against the will any person his National citizenship:

t is well settled that the whole people of the United States asserted their political identity and unity of purpose when they created the federal system.

A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition[…]that[…]the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States.

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

Consequently, just as the majority of a given state lacks the authority to deny an American citizen who resides in that state his civil liberties, so too does the majority of a given state lack the authority to take from an American his citizenship, where his state of residence is irrelevant in that regard.

 

[Rogue 9]

It says no such thing.

We've done this before, you know. I'm perfectly willing to do it again.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:

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.

The power to regulate and dispose of United States territory is explicitly vested in the Congress. Nothing in the Constitution may be interpreted to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States. No state law may contravene federal law or the Constitution. That's the 10th Amendment argument and the method of state ordinance of secession both out the window. There is one, and only one, constitutional method by which a state may leave the Union, and that is by the passage of a constitutional amendment.

Yes, we've done this before, and you made a fool of yourself. A state is not a territory, so your premise doesn't apply. The Supremacy clause applies only so long as a state continues to be a member of the union. It's like club rules that say, "so long as you are in this club, you will follow these rules." The minute you quit the club, the rules no longer apply. Your belief that a member can't quit the club is pure idiocy.

territory, noun \ˈter-ə-ˌtȯr-ē\ : an area of land that belongs to or is controlled by a government

The clause says "the territory," as in the land within its borders in total, not "the territories," the administrative subdivisions not yet made into states. The fact that it also says the Constitution can't be construed to prejudice the claims of any particular state reinforces this, since states individually don't have territories in the sense you're trying to make it mean.

 

[bripat9643]

We've done this before, you know. I'm perfectly willing to do it again.

This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:
The power to regulate and dispose of United States territory is explicitly vested in the Congress. Nothing in the Constitution may be interpreted to prejudice the territorial claims of the United States. No state law may contravene federal law or the Constitution. That's the 10th Amendment argument and the method of state ordinance of secession both out the window. There is one, and only one, constitutional method by which a state may leave the Union, and that is by the passage of a constitutional amendment.

Yes, we've done this before, and you made a fool of yourself. A state is not a territory, so your premise doesn't apply. The Supremacy clause applies only so long as a state continues to be a member of the union. It's like club rules that say, "so long as you are in this club, you will follow these rules." The minute you quit the club, the rules no longer apply. Your belief that a member can't quit the club is pure idiocy.

territory, noun \ˈter-ə-ˌtȯr-ē\ : an area of land that belongs to or is controlled by a government

The clause says "the territory," as in the land within its borders in total, not "the territories," the administrative subdivisions not yet made into states. The fact that it also says the Constitution can't be construed to prejudice the claims of any particular state reinforces this, since states individually don't have territories in the sense you're trying to make it mean.

Once again, liberal ignorance is used as a debate point. In the Constitution the word "territory" refers to land that is not part of a state but still controlled by the federal government. Before it became a state, North Dakota was part of the Dakota territory. It was even referred to in legal documents as such.

Read a history book and learn something instead of relying on ignorance.

 

[bripat9643]

As I stated earlier in this and other formats.
I am an ardent supporter of secession, of freedom of association both personal and political; that Jefferson was 100 percent correct in the Declaration when he asserted that a people have the right to dissolve old political bonds and institute new ones.
That said nobody is going anywhere.
Governments at all levels are wedded to the federal teat.
Half the population (or more) collects some kind of check.
The national government troops would crush any attempt.
It doesn't matter what they may think as individuals, they will mindlessly follow orders as they go up against them domestic terrorists. The US military has never failed to support the government when pitted against the citizenry. The New York draft riots and the removal of the bonus army for example.
Waco is a bad example, but it is one that most are familiar with.
50 + days of steady demonization across all media outlets, daily statements by government from the scene and D.C. on what terrible people were held up there.
Any such secession movement would meet a similar fate.
The military, from the individual and unit level on up, will respond as the agents of the state that they are and follow orders. They will willingly follow their orders, be good Americans and crush any rebellion, with as much violence as they are allowed.

Nonsense.

States cannot ‘secede’ unilaterally because the residents of those states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where the people created the Federal government to codify that citizenship in the Constitution, and where no state can take against the will any person his National citizenship:

t is well settled that the whole people of the United States asserted their political identity and unity of purpose when they created the federal system.

A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition[…]that[…]the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States.

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

Consequently, just as the majority of a given state lacks the authority to deny an American citizen who resides in that state his civil liberties, so too does the majority of a given state lack the authority to take from an American his citizenship, where his state of residence is irrelevant in that regard.

This logic is particularly idiotic. If a state seceded, anyone who wanted to could continue to remain a citizen of the United States. Of course, they would now be foreign residents of a new country. They would be subject to all laws and regulations concerning foreign residents. They would enjoy only the rights granted to them by that country as well. They can enjoy their U.S. Constitutional rights in the USA, but not overseas.

BTW, the decision you are quoting is a perfect example of judicial overreach. The claim that states can't "interfere" in a federal election is obvious horseshit since the Constitution specifically says that states get to set their own election laws. If that isn't "interfering" then the term is meaningless.

 

[Rogue 9]

territory, noun \ˈter-ə-ˌtȯr-ē\ : an area of land that belongs to or is controlled by a government

The clause says "the territory," as in the land within its borders in total, not "the territories," the administrative subdivisions not yet made into states. The fact that it also says the Constitution can't be construed to prejudice the claims of any particular state reinforces this, since states individually don't have territories in the sense you're trying to make it mean.

Once again, liberal ignorance is used as a debate point. In the Constitution the word "territory" refers to land that is not part of a state but still controlled by the federal government. Before it became a state, North Dakota was part of the Dakota territory. It was ever referred to in legal documents as such.

Read a history book and learn something instead of relying on ignorance.

I've read many history books, and apparently had better reading comprehension while doing so, presuming you did at all. This is basic English grammar, not "liberal ignorance." The territory of the United States means the land comprising the United States, not the administrative subdivisions of unorganized territories. Otherwise it would have said the Northwest Territory or the territories, using similar language to the Northwest Ordinance, passed at nearly the same time.

 

[bripat9643]

The clause says "the territory," as in the land within its borders in total, not "the territories," the administrative subdivisions not yet made into states. The fact that it also says the Constitution can't be construed to prejudice the claims of any particular state reinforces this, since states individually don't have territories in the sense you're trying to make it mean.

Once again, liberal ignorance is used as a debate point. In the Constitution the word "territory" refers to land that is not part of a state but still controlled by the federal government. Before it became a state, North Dakota was part of the Dakota territory. It was ever referred to in legal documents as such.

Read a history book and learn something instead of relying on ignorance.

I've read many history books, and apparently had better reading comprehension while doing so, presuming you did at all. This is basic English grammar, not "liberal ignorance." The territory of the United States means the land comprising the United States, not the administrative subdivisions of unorganized territories. Otherwise it would have said the Northwest Territory or the territories, using similar language to the Northwest Ordinance, passed at nearly the same time.

It says "the territory belonging to the United States," not "the territory of the United States." So not only are you ignorant of U.S. history, you're a bald faced liar.

Obviously "territory belonging to the United States" is something separate and distinct from the United States proper. That's basic English grammar.

You're basically just a god damned moron. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.

 

[Rogue 9]

I've read many history books, and apparently had better reading comprehension while doing so, presuming you did at all. This is basic English grammar, not "liberal ignorance." The territory of the United States means the land comprising the United States, not the administrative subdivisions of unorganized territories. Otherwise it would have said the Northwest Territory or the territories, using similar language to the Northwest Ordinance, passed at nearly the same time.

It says "the territory belonging to the United States," not "the territory of the United States." So not only are you ignorant of U.S. history, you're a bald faced liar.

Obviously "territory belonging to the United States" is something separate and distinct from the United States proper. That's basic English grammar.

You're basically just a god damned moron. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.

Projection, much? It says "The Territory or Other Property belonging to the United States," to be specific. I said as much in the thread, so it's hard to see how you think I'm lying about it. If you can't read the English language then I'm very sorry, but the clause clearly says this is a power of Congress, not the states.

 

[bripat9643]

I've read many history books, and apparently had better reading comprehension while doing so, presuming you did at all. This is basic English grammar, not "liberal ignorance." The territory of the United States means the land comprising the United States, not the administrative subdivisions of unorganized territories. Otherwise it would have said the Northwest Territory or the territories, using similar language to the Northwest Ordinance, passed at nearly the same time.

It says "the territory belonging to the United States," not "the territory of the United States." So not only are you ignorant of U.S. history, you're a bald faced liar.

Obviously "territory belonging to the United States" is something separate and distinct from the United States proper. That's basic English grammar.

You're basically just a god damned moron. You're too stupid to bother arguing with.

Projection, much? It says "The Territory or Other Property belonging to the United States," to be specific. I said as much in the thread, so it's hard to see how you think I'm lying about it. If you can't read the English language then I'm very sorry, but the clause clearly says this is a power of Congress, not the states.

Allow me to quote you, moron:

"The territory OF the United States means the land comprising the United States, not the administrative subdivisions of unorganized territories"​

You even quoted yourself in the previous post where you denied saying it.

You are a special kind of stupid. You're so pathetic that you're not even fun to kick around.

 

[R.C. Christian]

In a heartbeat, even if it meant a throw down I'd ultimately lose.