Sucession is a Legal Right of each State

[The Rabbi]

So now SUpreme Court cases are "legal fictions"?? WTF?
Do you understand how this system works?

 

[editec]

Did you mean to use the word secession???

Why all the talk of secession since the Republicans lost the election?

Some of us don't want to live under a communist government that we think Obama wants to create. You probably think its wrong for any citizen to declare their government null but when did people lose the right to create a government that represents their own interest?

The individual and the right to live their life as they please is supreme and supercedes the right of any government to exist.

Yeah?

What if my right to live as I please includes killing you and taking your shit?

Who ya' gonna call?

Objectivist libertarian anarchists?

Or the cops?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

It's not a political question.
I personally believe in a strong Federal government over individual State sovereignty. 50 different people heading in different directions trying to walk one dog makes no sense. But that's not the question either.
The question is whether the Constitution as drafted and subsequently amended allows for States (theoretically at least) to voluntarily leave the union they chartered. The answer is yes. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting question about the nature of the union.

No, the answer is no. You have never shown where a yes answer might come from. I have shown authoritative views that say the answer is no. If you have an authoritative source that supports your contention please post it. But after many pages the answer obviously is you dont and you are relying on a simple minded reading of the text. Which is a no no in ConLaw.

What authoritative view have you offered? The Supremacy Clause? The Preamble, for goodness' sake? A politically motivated legal fiction of a supreme court case?
It's not there. The closest argument is the Article 4 analysis, but it falls short due to the lack of linkage between the Federal government's paternalistic role over the States' governmental structure and the right to set aside a State government and set up a new one against its will, by force if necessary.
The fact is, it's not there. You argue as though the Constitution were a contract between the States in perpetuity with force as the remedy for breach. It is not, and under such a contractual view of the document the entirety would probably be nullified. It is a charter under which the States agreed to cede pieces of their authority to a new entity. There is nothing stating the charter is irrevocable, therefore, it must be.
That said, if any State were to try it of course they'd get their asses handed to them on a platter by Uncle Sam. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't mean the theoretical right doesn't exist.

I'll second this post from goldcatt...even though we hate each other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Goldcatt and PatekPhilippe are theoretically correct.

Abraham Lincoln and the North murdered the South, reducing all this to sterile maunderings.

 

[goldcatt]

Goldcatt and PatekPhilippe are theoretically correct.

Abraham Lincoln and the North murdered the South, reducing all this to sterile maunderings.

True. But it's something to argue about. /shrug

 

[Cold Fusion38]

ALL right go ahead ang get by with LESS than yiu get from gov'y. MY STATE OD idaho pays less than they pay $1.20 per fed put in. so you May want to chack to see if you will be LOfed $$.OSING

Wha?

My state IDAHO gets $1.20 from the Fed for every $1 dollar they give the Fed.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

ALL right go ahead ang get by with LESS than yiu get from gov'y. MY STATE OD idaho pays less than they pay $1.20 per fed put in. so you May want to chack to see if you will be LOfed $$.OSING

Cold...lay off the brake fluid...that shit kills brain cells....

Dude I just got off the phone after listening to the ravings of my VERY OLD FRIEND(like 24 YEARS) about him kicking Methadone and he has no place to live no money and I am just there to LISTEN to him. He knows I am NOT going to give him a place to live and I may on occasion give him $10 for gas( I will pre pay and let him fuel) but I an not going to leet him in my home because no matter how good a friend you can't trust a junky.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

ALL right go ahead ang get by with LESS than yiu get from gov'y. MY STATE OD idaho pays less than they pay $1.20 per fed put in. so you May want to chack to see if you will be LOfed $$.OSING

Cold...lay off the brake fluid...that shit kills brain cells....

Dude I just got off the phone after listening to the ravings of my VERY OLD FRIEND(like 24 YEARS) about him kicking Methadone and he has no place to live no money and I am just there to LISTEN to him. He knows I am NOT going to give him a place to live and I may on occasion give him $10 for gas( I will pre pay and let him fuel) but I an not going to leet him in my home because no matter how good a friend you can't trust a junky.

Hang in there bro....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Cold...lay off the brake fluid...that shit kills brain cells....

Dude I just got off the phone after listening to the ravings of my VERY OLD FRIEND(like 24 YEARS) about him kicking Methadone and he has no place to live no money and I am just there to LISTEN to him. He knows I am NOT going to give him a place to live and I may on occasion give him $10 for gas( I will pre pay and let him fuel) but I an not going to leet him in my home because no matter how good a friend you can't trust a junky.

Hang in there bro....

I have a sibling like that, cold fusion. Stay strong, stay loving, stay in control of this situation. Man, that's tough!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What authoritative view have you offered? The Supremacy Clause? The Preamble, for goodness' sake? A politically motivated legal fiction of a supreme court case?
It's not there. The closest argument is the Article 4 analysis, but it falls short due to the lack of linkage between the Federal government's paternalistic role over the States' governmental structure and the right to set aside a State government and set up a new one against its will, by force if necessary.
The fact is, it's not there. You argue as though the Constitution were a contract between the States in perpetuity with force as the remedy for breach. It is not, and under such a contractual view of the document the entirety would probably be nullified. It is a charter under which the States agreed to cede pieces of their authority to a new entity. There is nothing stating the charter is irrevocable, therefore, it must be.
That said, if any State were to try it of course they'd get their asses handed to them on a platter by Uncle Sam. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't mean the theoretical right doesn't exist.

It is worth noting that the Constitution does provide a theoretical method for dissolution of the Union, namely the power of the States to call a Constitutional Convention. Provided a sufficient number of States agree to call the Convention, and a sufficient number of states were to approve an ammendment allowing for dissolution of the union, things would be legally fine.

Past that, there is no way in practice for a State to leave the Union. A state that decided to go would almost certainly meet with doom, either at the hands of the Federal Government, or at the hands of the world community. A single state, on its own in the world community would be easy pickings for global and economic oppression.

 

[goldcatt]

What authoritative view have you offered? The Supremacy Clause? The Preamble, for goodness' sake? A politically motivated legal fiction of a supreme court case?
It's not there. The closest argument is the Article 4 analysis, but it falls short due to the lack of linkage between the Federal government's paternalistic role over the States' governmental structure and the right to set aside a State government and set up a new one against its will, by force if necessary.
The fact is, it's not there. You argue as though the Constitution were a contract between the States in perpetuity with force as the remedy for breach. It is not, and under such a contractual view of the document the entirety would probably be nullified. It is a charter under which the States agreed to cede pieces of their authority to a new entity. There is nothing stating the charter is irrevocable, therefore, it must be.
That said, if any State were to try it of course they'd get their asses handed to them on a platter by Uncle Sam. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't mean the theoretical right doesn't exist.

It is worth noting that the Constitution does provide a theoretical method for dissolution of the Union, namely the power of the States to call a Constitutional Convention. Provided a sufficient number of States agree to call the Convention, and a sufficient number of states were to approve an ammendment allowing for dissolution of the union, things would be legally fine.

Past that, there is no way in practice for a State to leave the Union. A state that decided to go would almost certainly meet with doom, either at the hands of the Federal Government, or at the hands of the world community. A single state, on its own in the world community would be easy pickings for global and economic oppression.

In practice, you're correct. But the fact that the Federal government and/or the neighbors would wipe up the floor with a breakaway State doesn't mean the Constitution actually forbids it. It just means it would be suicidal to try. There's a difference.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

In practice, you're correct. But the fact that the Federal government and/or the neighbors would wipe up the floor with a breakaway State doesn't mean the Constitution actually forbids it. It just means it would be suicidal to try. There's a difference.

True.

On a side note, I've always wondered at exactly why there is no recognized mechanism for secession from the Union, other than possibly the Ammendment process. It would have seemed to be an important enough topic to broach.

After all, even if the 10th Ammendment leaves the decision to the States, how do the States do so? Pass a law? Sign a petition? Host a Reality Show? It would seem that there would have had to be a way to recognize a legitimate process, otherwise a neighborhood petition could be held up as "proof" of the State's desire to leave.

Its just such an important topic for the Constitution to be silent on.

 

[rightwinger]

What authoritative view have you offered? The Supremacy Clause? The Preamble, for goodness' sake? A politically motivated legal fiction of a supreme court case?
It's not there. The closest argument is the Article 4 analysis, but it falls short due to the lack of linkage between the Federal government's paternalistic role over the States' governmental structure and the right to set aside a State government and set up a new one against its will, by force if necessary.
The fact is, it's not there. You argue as though the Constitution were a contract between the States in perpetuity with force as the remedy for breach. It is not, and under such a contractual view of the document the entirety would probably be nullified. It is a charter under which the States agreed to cede pieces of their authority to a new entity. There is nothing stating the charter is irrevocable, therefore, it must be.
That said, if any State were to try it of course they'd get their asses handed to them on a platter by Uncle Sam. It's not going to happen. But that doesn't mean the theoretical right doesn't exist.

It is worth noting that the Constitution does provide a theoretical method for dissolution of the Union, namely the power of the States to call a Constitutional Convention. Provided a sufficient number of States agree to call the Convention, and a sufficient number of states were to approve an ammendment allowing for dissolution of the union, things would be legally fine.

Past that, there is no way in practice for a State to leave the Union. A state that decided to go would almost certainly meet with doom, either at the hands of the Federal Government, or at the hands of the world community. A single state, on its own in the world community would be easy pickings for global and economic oppression.

There is no way for a state to cleanly secede from the union. So many services are intertwined between the States and the federal Government that there is no way to leave without killing the patient.
If you leave..
What happens to your Social Security, Medicaid?
What about Federal and Military bases in the state?
Post Office?
Disaster assistance?
Interstate Highway debt?

 

[jillian]

It's not a political question.
I personally believe in a strong Federal government over individual State sovereignty. 50 different people heading in different directions trying to walk one dog makes no sense. But that's not the question either.
The question is whether the Constitution as drafted and subsequently amended allows for States (theoretically at least) to voluntarily leave the union they chartered. The answer is yes. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting question about the nature of the union.

No, the answer is no. You have never shown where a yes answer might come from. I have shown authoritative views that say the answer is no. If you have an authoritative source that supports your contention please post it. But after many pages the answer obviously is you dont and you are relying on a simple minded reading of the text. Which is a no no in ConLaw.

It was always anticipated that the union be permanent.
It was also a concerted decision to strenghten the fed and weaken the states when we moved from the articles of confederation to the constitution.

i love the so-called constitutionalists who ignore that.

 

[goldcatt]

It's not a political question.
I personally believe in a strong Federal government over individual State sovereignty. 50 different people heading in different directions trying to walk one dog makes no sense. But that's not the question either.
The question is whether the Constitution as drafted and subsequently amended allows for States (theoretically at least) to voluntarily leave the union they chartered. The answer is yes. Practically speaking, it's not going to happen. But it's an interesting question about the nature of the union.

No, the answer is no. You have never shown where a yes answer might come from. I have shown authoritative views that say the answer is no. If you have an authoritative source that supports your contention please post it. But after many pages the answer obviously is you dont and you are relying on a simple minded reading of the text. Which is a no no in ConLaw.

It was always anticipated that the union be permanent.
It was also a concerted decision to strenghten the fed and weaken the states when we moved from the articles of confederation to the constitution.

i love the so-called constitutionalists who ignore that.

It was anticipated that it be permanent, and I agree with you as to the purpose. But they failed to put the "permanent" part into the document. Probably to avoid scaring the States away from ratifying it, but it's still not there.
It's all academic anyway, but IMO if it's not forbidden it is "technically" allowed.

 

[geauxtohell]

Dude I just got off the phone after listening to the ravings of my VERY OLD FRIEND(like 24 YEARS) about him kicking Methadone and he has no place to live no money and I am just there to LISTEN to him. He knows I am NOT going to give him a place to live and I may on occasion give him $10 for gas( I will pre pay and let him fuel) but I an not going to leet him in my home because no matter how good a friend you can't trust a junky.

I wouldn't either.

The reality of methadone is that is simply replaces heroin (or the opiate of choice that they were addicted too) for an addict.

 

[lawbuff]

There is no way for a state to cleanly secede from the union. So many services are intertwined between the States and the federal Government that there is no way to leave without killing the patient.
If you leave..
What happens to your Social Security, Medicaid?
What about Federal and Military bases in the state?
Post Office?
Disaster assistance?
Interstate Highway debt?

I am in total agreement. Any secession as in the war between the states would be political suicide.

One example:

Article 4:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

If they are invaded domestically or by a foreign power, NO federal Military might will help.

Texas v. White cited has no bearing, IMO, as to secede means to "repeal the ratification of the constitution". Therefore if a new sovereign Republic is born, supposedly violating the old federal constitution, it means nothing.

As single Amendment's can be repealed, so can the entire Constitution.

BIG BROTHER would be terrifying to have gone from ones side though!!

As South Dakota v. Dole pointed out, IF the states did not raise thier minimum drinking age to 21, Congress would cut off XX $$ from thier federal highway funds. EVERY state caved in.

They did not have to under the power of the 21st, per the court, but they also ruled it was in Congress' authority to deny funds if they refused.

Secession=Political genocide.

 

[geauxtohell]

For the record, I am a pragmatist. I am less concerned with the esoteric legal arguments that surround this issue, which will never be effectively argued or settled (just as they weren't in 1861) and more concerned with the reality of the matter which is this:

If any group enters into insurrection, they will be crushed by the federal Army.

Just as they were during the Whiskey Rebellion, Harper's Ferry, and the civil war.

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy worlds, but you know I am right.

You further know that all this talk will never amount to anything since no one wants to try and take on a Bradley full of infantry.

 

[rightwinger]

For the record, I am a pragmatist. I am less concerned with the esoteric legal arguments that surround this issue, which will never be effectively argued or settled (just as they weren't in 1861) and more concerned with the reality of the matter which is this:

If any group enters into insurrection, they will be crushed by the federal Army.

Just as they were during the Whiskey Rebellion, Harper's Ferry, and the civil war.

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy worlds, but you know I am right.

You further know that all this talk will never amount to anything since no one wants to try and take on a Bradley full of infantry.

Does this mean we don't get to bomb Texas??

 

[geauxtohell]

For the record, I am a pragmatist. I am less concerned with the esoteric legal arguments that surround this issue, which will never be effectively argued or settled (just as they weren't in 1861) and more concerned with the reality of the matter which is this:

If any group enters into insurrection, they will be crushed by the federal Army.

Just as they were during the Whiskey Rebellion, Harper's Ferry, and the civil war.

You guys are welcome to live in your fantasy worlds, but you know I am right.

You further know that all this talk will never amount to anything since no one wants to try and take on a Bradley full of infantry.

Does this mean we don't get to bomb Texas??

Doubtful as the vast majority of Texans (while sometimes being overly-obnoxious/confident in the supremacy of their state) are good Americans who would never enter into treason.

Plus, Texas has great music and food. We'd miss that if they were gone.