Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

CAN A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECEDE?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Cosssack

Cosssack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59843 posts

Posted 18 September 2020 - 11:52 PM

CAN A STATE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECEDE?

https://www.historia...tionally-secede

Constitutionally, there can be no such thing as secession of a State from the Union.

But it does not follow that because a State cannot secede constitutionally, it is obliged under all circumstances to remain in the Union.

 

There is a natural right, which is reserved by all men, and which cannot be given to any Government, and no Government can take it away. It is the natural right of a people to form a Government for their mutual protection, for the promotion of their mutual welfare, and for such other purposes as they may deem most conducive to their mutual happiness and prosperity; but if for any cause the Government so formed should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions. For be it borne in mind, the Constitution is an agreement made among the people that the Government formed by it is to be just such a Government as it prescribes; that when it recognizes a right to exist, it must protect the person in the enjoyment of that right, and when it imposes a reciprocal duty upon a portion of the people, the performance of that duty it will have enforced. When a government fails in any of these essential respects, it is not the Government the people intended it to be, and it is their right to modify or abolish it.

 

So, if the rights of the people of the United States as recognized by the Constitution, are not secured to them by the Government, and the people of any State have no other means to redress their grievances except by separating themselves from their oppressors, it is their undoubted natural right to do so. Now it is unquestionable that one of the rights recognized to belong to the Southern people by the Constitution, and pledged to be respected by the other States, and secured to them by the Government, has nevertheless been violated, wilfully and intentionally by twelve Northern States; and this course towards the South has been virtually approved of by a large majority of the Northern people at the recent election.

 

What then is the South to do[?] Suffer the compact which brought them into the Union to be violated with impunity, and without means of redress; submit to incursions into their territory and trespass upon their property by northern abolitionists[?] Look on submissively upon every aggression upon their domestic institutions[?] Who expects, who desires the South to submit to all this? The South will not do it. The South ought not to do it.

……….

 

 


  • 0

#2 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37020 posts

Posted 19 September 2020 - 01:04 AM

I disagree with the idea that being a US state is a one-way trip.

 

The 1st Amendment protects the right of association, which means any US state should have the right to disassociate itself from the Union, with a vote of Congress.  

 

Nothing the constitution says would suggest that the Union is forever, and the Declaration of Independence declares the people have a right to alter or abolish a government when it ceases to please them, and to institute a new government.   So we have an argument that secession is possible and legal if Congress agrees.  

 

And if Congress rejects secession, one could still argue that the 1st Amendment gives that right to the states.

 

Congress holds the key to the Union.   States need a vote of Congress to be admitted to the Union, so logically, it should take a vote of Congress to effect leaving the Union.   And before Congress can vote, the people of that state would have to vote to seceed.   So I think it can be done, but only in the right way.   The Confederacy might have done it differently and won a court decision allowing secession, or argued its case to Congress.   There is always a legal way to accomplish a goal.


  • 1

#3 Kingranch

Kingranch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3002 posts

Posted 19 September 2020 - 01:38 AM

Maybe?


  • 0

#4 Marmoset

Marmoset

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4356 posts

Posted 19 September 2020 - 01:48 AM

Cantons

 

All American and Australian and Canadian states could possibly be turned into autonomous Chinese controlled cantons in the near future. The Chinese are of course controlled by the Jewish Central Banking Cartel which already controls the world. The advantages for the banksters is that walls or fences could be constructed around each canton to prevent travel. The excuse would of course be the virtual virus. Thanks to false positives (all of them are false) in the tests the virtual virus will always be with us. As will the repression that goes with it. The Chinese experience with face recognition cameras and social credit scores would be handy. The Chinese culture of masks has already engulfed the West and the rest of the world. All roads in the new empire lead to Pyongyang. If the vaccine is fatal all this is of no importance. The future - imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.


  • 0

#5 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37020 posts

Posted 19 September 2020 - 05:58 AM

"In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."

 

Almost correct, but it requires the consent of Congress for a state to be admitted into the Union, and that infers that secession could be lawful with the consent of Congress.   Consent of the states is derived by the consent of Congress.

 

Obviously the Confederate states consented among themselves to seceed, but that lacked consent of ALL of the states, which would occur by vote of Congressional representatives of the states.

 

The concept that a federation of states should last forever has never actually occurred in human history.   Every empire, without exception, eventually disintegrated over time.   One can already see stress cracks expanding in the American empire as the rioting suggests.   We now have states openly defying the federal government, a de facto form of secession by derogating federal authority.   Federal courts likewise have ruled against numerous policies of the federal government recently, adding to the stress upon the now-fragile Union.   At some point, the US becomes united in name only if the stress increases.


  • 0

#6 Ivan88

Ivan88

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17471 posts

Posted 19 September 2020 - 03:50 PM

Legally a state coutd leave. But Lincoln, Marx, the Rich man, and others used extreme force to prevent it.

And, most politicians are of the same Communist mentality.

So for a state to leave Communist USA will be forciblliy prevented, just as USA is busy destroying countries around the world

that don't want to submit to the Noahide code, that USA officially adopted in 1991, that requires Talmudists to control everything.


  • 0

#7 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37020 posts

Posted 20 September 2020 - 01:41 AM

Yes, power trumps legality.   China invading Tibet was a violation of UN Article 2, and illegal, but who has the manpower to fight the Chinese PLA?   No country wants a war with a nation having over a billion people.   Law is obeyed by China's communists to the extent it fits into their agenda, and if not, law is discarded like a soiled diaper.

 

No POTUS will want to be the guy who shrunk America.   They will all use military power to eliminate any group that tries to secede from the Union.   China has the same idea towards Hong Kong and Taiwan.  CCP won't allow China to be smaller.


  • 0

#8 Cosssack

Cosssack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59843 posts

Posted 21 September 2020 - 02:18 AM

I disagree with the idea that being a US state is a one-way trip.

 

The 1st Amendment protects the right of association, which means any US state should have the right to disassociate itself from the Union, with a vote of Congress.  

 

Nothing the constitution says would suggest that the Union is forever, and the Declaration of Independence declares the people have a right to alter or abolish a government when it ceases to please them, and to institute a new government.   So we have an argument that secession is possible and legal if Congress agrees.  

 

And if Congress rejects secession, one could still argue that the 1st Amendment gives that right to the states.

 

Congress holds the key to the Union.   States need a vote of Congress to be admitted to the Union, so logically, it should take a vote of Congress to effect leaving the Union.   And before Congress can vote, the people of that state would have to vote to seceed.   So I think it can be done, but only in the right way.   The Confederacy might have done it differently and won a court decision allowing secession, or argued its case to Congress.   There is always a legal way to accomplish a goal.

 

good post


  • 0

#9 Cosssack

Cosssack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59843 posts

Posted 21 September 2020 - 02:31 AM

The freedom of association — unlike the rights of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition — is a right not listed in the First Amendment but recognized by the courts as a fundamental right.


  • 0

#10 Cosssack

Cosssack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59843 posts

Posted 21 September 2020 - 11:02 AM

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.

 

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

 

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

 

 As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, travel, self-defense, privacy, freedom of association, ownership and use of property,— immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

 

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

 

 


  • 0

#11 Cosssack

Cosssack

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59843 posts

Posted 21 September 2020 - 11:05 AM

SO HOW AMERICA’S FOUNDER’S UNDERSTOOD THE WORDS ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

http://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/episode1

 

Transcript February 11, 2013

Constitution Minute #1: How Well Do You Understand Our Constitution?

 

STUDENT: Hello, I’m Ted, a student at Hillsdale College. Here is Doctor Larry Arnn on How America’s founders understood the words all men are created equal.

 

DR. ARNN: America’s founders knew, obviously, that human beings are not equal in terms of strength or beauty, or in terms of intelligence, industry or talents. They understood that because of such differences, differences in talents and things like that, some people would be wealthier than others. But human beings are equal, the founders believed, in their possession of natural rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property. Today many American’s reject this equality of rights in order to pursue equality of condition through redistribution, or spreading the wealth around to use a famous formulation. This is destructive of liberty as the founders understood it. So: we have equal right to:  life, bear arms, privacy, property, liberty (freedom of speech, freedom of association).However, we do not have right to equal conditions or outcomes.

 

 

 

 

 

The First Amendment does not generally extend into a private workplace, any more than it gives me the right to come into your house and hector you with my opinions. No one has ever told Colin Kapernick or anyone else not to march in protest, attend a demonstration, or hold a sign on a sidewalk. What fans object to is that he is protesting on the clock. He has no right to do that, and Trump is correct those NFL owners — if they had any spine — ought to tell the protesting players to get lost.

If you doubt that, try a thought experiment: what would happen to a player who wore a Nazi armband to opening lineups? What about his freedom of speech?

The reason we stand for the anthem — no matter how disappointed we are in the trajectory of our nation — is to show that we love our country and wish it well. That’s all. If it meant any of these things, then no social conservative could stand for the anthem, given that the Supreme Court has held that our Constitution protects abortions.


  • 0

#12 Radio1

Radio1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5936 posts

Posted 22 September 2020 - 01:33 AM

Looks like Cocksnack is a victim of Russian propaganda that aims to foment violence and sedition in the US, in this case by trying to radicalize white racists in the south, of whom there are many.


  • 0

#13 Zharkov

Zharkov

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 37020 posts

Posted 22 September 2020 - 02:20 AM

White nationalists were already as radicalized as one could be.   It is, after all, the Caucasian Race that is being attacked by both media and minorities.   Even government democrat officials have joined in the attack.  The danger is clear and present, so nothing Russia could do would make it worse.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru