America was FOUNDED on secession

[JakeStarkey]

The confeds were worried about a "tax and subsidize" mentality? Are you talking about the tariff?

You mentoids to the far right and the libertarian wing are fun to read, that's for sure.

 

[bodecea]

You have no facts, only wacky beliefs. Goofy, you are just goofy.

Look who's talking....

Not one of them has been able to present any proof except, "They can't secede! They just can't!"

Of course they can try to secede...and if they do...then ok. Texas first please.

 

[onecut39]

If secession is illegal, then how were Virginia and New York allowed to specifically retain the right of secession when they joined the Union?

Really? Where in the Constitution is that?

Outside of Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution itself restrains only the feds.

Very helpful."outside of article 1 section ten" is rest of the constitution. Could you be a bit more informative because I have never run across such an article.

It is true that at the founding many states 'reserved the right of secession" but it is not in the constitution. (correct me if I am wrong)

We know how well secession worked out in the Civil War. The cold reality of the present is that should any state secede they could be crushed economically simply by the implementation of tariffs and/or the closing of their borders to the rest of the states.

Most of the states that make noises about secession are welfare states, meaning they take more back from the government than they pay. Just eliminating that makes secession a lot less attractive.

But hey I am kind of sick of their noises, let them put their money where their mouth is.

 

[thanatos144]

It seems to me that the people here against secession are the conservatives that want to wrap themselves in the flag and the liberals who are more happy that we're on the road to socialism (so they think). Both seem rather unconcerned with the loss of liberties and will not excuse secession as an alternative. It's funny to see them throw around almost archaic words like treason.

How about conservatives who know a really stupid idea when they see one????? What good does doing something so obviously childish and ignorant that gets nothing but another civil war??????Cause one side or the other will kick off a war and for what???? Pride? Sticking it to the other side? How many times should we do the same stupid shit? I leave that ignorance to liberals.

 

[thanatos144]

[


Nothing is in the Constitution regarding secession, asshole.

Libs obviously don't know jack shit.

Of course not. The FF took it as a given that the states had the right to secede. That's what the Revolutionary War was about.

Where do you get this???? No where do they say this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cons and libs and libertards all fit that mode, thanatos, at times.

 

[jillian]

[
Whether it’s ‘treason’ or not is irrelevant, as it is un-Constitutional. See: Texas v. White

.

HAHAHA. So the federal judiciary gets to decide if a state can defy the federal govt??

Yes. And a basic understanding of our legal and governmental system would probably be helpful to you in terms of understanding the relationship between the variou branches of government as well as the relationship between the states and the federal government

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If secession is illegal, then how were Virginia and New York allowed to specifically retain the right of secession when they joined the Union?

Really? Where in the Constitution is that?

Outside of Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution itself restrains only the feds.

Woefully incorrect


Article VI Clause 2, Amendment XIII, Amendment XIV, Amendment XV, Amendment XIX, and Amendment XXIV restrict the power of the states. Also, much of the restrictions on federal power found in the first 9 amendments are extended to the states via incorporation in the 14th Amendment.

There may be more than that, I didn't do a thorough check.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What a tough guy you are.

Me? I'm not tough. That's why I have a military that protects me.

How does a state you don't live in choosing to secede threaten you that you would require protection?

Its an active rebellion against the sovereignty of the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation established a perpetual union among the states. The Constitution did not alter this arrangement, in fact, it strengthened the union, to make it "more perfect".


You can read as much in Texas v White 1896.


So we've got not only a Supreme Court decision which makes it clear no state can withdraw without consent of the Congress - but also, we've got half a million dead men who say the issue has already been settled.

 

[Oddball]

Pieces of paper aren't perpetual, Bubba.

 

[thanatos144]

Pieces of paper aren't perpetual, Bubba.

You have so little respect for the constitution? Are you know like Obama and think it is just a piece a paper to be overcome for some great utopia?

 

[Oddball]

I have no respect for preposterous claims, no matter from whence they come.

Nothing is forever.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The confeds were worried about a "tax and subsidize" mentality? Are you talking about the tariff?

.

I've read the confederate constitution had a clause that outlawed so called "internal improvements". Today we call it corporate welfare. In the 1800s both state and federal govts were taxing the public and giving the money to businesses to build roads and canals. Trouble is the constructions never happened. They were all scams. Some things never change.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Pieces of paper aren't perpetual, Bubba.

The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are not pieces of paper.

 

[thanatos144]

I have no respect for preposterous claims, no matter from whence they come.

Nothing is forever.

Maybe not but but to actively destroy it is to me despicable.

 

[candycorn]

A few weeks ago the right wing lunatics wanted a divorce.

Now, in the light of the Supreme Court decision on the ACA, they want succession.

When Obama wins in November; what next...your own planet?

 

[Oddball]

I have no respect for preposterous claims, no matter from whence they come.

Nothing is forever.

Maybe not but but to actively destroy it is to me despicable.

Doesn't get anymore despicable than using the myth of perpetuity, to justify a union of, by and for proactive compulsion and force.....The kind of force that hurts people.

 

[JWBooth]

Perpetuity?
At the point of a bayonet.

 

[MuadDib]

The confeds were worried about a "tax and subsidize" mentality? Are you talking about the tariff?

.

I've read the confederate constitution had a clause that outlawed so called "internal improvements". Today we call it corporate welfare. In the 1800s both state and federal govts were taxing the public and giving the money to businesses to build roads and canals. Trouble is the constructions never happened. They were all scams. Some things never change.

That's exactly what was happening. Railroad subsidies were a big part of it too.

When Lincoln entered the political scene in 1832 in Illinois, he immediately started campaigning for taxing to subsidize internal improvements in the state. His own law partner, William Herndon, called it "reckless and unwise". The Illinois legislature appropriated $12 million to build roads, canals, and railroads. By the end of the decade, none of the projects were completed, the state had a load of debt and an empty treasury, and it took the state years to recover.

Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit tax dollars from being spent on any kind of private enterprise. When Lincoln hit the national political stage, he started doing it all over again.

 

[MuadDib]

Perpetuity?
At the point of a bayonet.

Exactly! The Union is a voluntary association of the states. It ceases to be voluntary at the point of a gun or bayonet.

Let's say that you are abusing your wife and taking her money. She finally gets fed up with it and leaves you. You go to her, hold a gun to her head, and make her come back home. Did you save your marriage or did you commit an armed assault?