Where do you stand on State succession?

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


  • Total voters
    72
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
 
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.
 
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Your interpretation is novel, and is nowhere supported by case law or any historical document.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.’
 
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.

.
 
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."
 
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.

220px-Thomas-Jefferson.jpg


.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top