Why do liberals say secession is TREASON?

[hipeter924]

Murder and rape are not in the Constitution ether does that mean those are legal?

No - it means those things are handled by the states. Can you think at all?

Thanks for proving my point about the 10th amendment. Now that you are more educated go and learn some more. Ignorance is not a good thing the live in

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No - it means those things are handled by the states. Can you think at all?

Thanks for proving my point about the 10th amendment. Now that you are more educated go and learn some more. Ignorance is not a good thing the live in

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

 

[RKMBrown]

No - it means those things are handled by the states. Can you think at all?

Thanks for proving my point about the 10th amendment. Now that you are more educated go and learn some more. Ignorance is not a good thing the live in

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

 

[bripat9643]

A bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks ruled it unconstitutional.

So what?

The same hacks that told him his suspension of heabeus corpus was unconstitutional. You are are idiot

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

No, it wasn't the same gang of hacks. It was a different gang of hacks. A majority of the ones who rules secession unconstitutional were Lincoln appointees. They were chosen specifically to rule the way they did on that issue.

Your lack of history is disturbing as hell.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

What have I posted that isn't factually correct?

None of that post was correct

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

ROFL! Right, and you included the usual supporting evidence in your post: NONE.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether the Court ruled that corporations are people is immaterial to the issue of the Court ruling secession is unconstitutional, as is your belief that the Court was Lincoln appointed hacks.

If you believe the court ruling means secession is unconstitutional, then to be consistent you have to believe that corporations are people. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim the court is the final authority in terms of absolute truth on one issue, while claiming they're just a bunch of hacks when it comes to another issue. Although as a lib I'm sure you want to.

If the Court said corporations are people, they are people, I never said the Court was wrong on that issue, I don't approve of the decision but then there is probably a number of Court decisions that I don't approve, but they are still the law of the land.

I think Bripat still believes that if a few conservatives got together with their weapons they could become an independent country within US borders.

I can't wait till they refuse to pay their taxes, as the IRS won't give a shit what fictional fiefdom they call themselves. Nor will the Swat Teams.

If it wasn't for the stuff you make up how could you ever win any points in a debate?

In this thread you seem to believe you can't win a debate without calling someone a Nazi.

I win all the time, but it's useful to remind liberals what they really are as often as possible.

 

[hipeter924]

Thanks for proving my point about the 10th amendment. Now that you are more educated go and learn some more. Ignorance is not a good thing the live in

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, might makes right.

Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?

Hardly. America is not an absolute democracy, meaning that if a majority in x state want to secede, they don't automatically achieve the right to do so.

Instead they have to go through the full process of appealing to Congress, and then the President.

Though if you are still butt-hurt since the civil war, here's a tissue:

There is nothing in the Constitution about a process for seceding. Your belief that such is required is purely a fantasy.

Sure there is. It is called the Congress and the President, who have the legal responsibility for legislation and treaties of the United States. There hasn't been an act of lawful secession as yet, so as a result it has never come up.

Secession isn't a treaty, dumbass. A number of times bills were submitted to Congress to make secession illegal and they were voted down. Apparently even the U.S. Congress agrees that secession is legal and constitutional.

Simply taking up arms and calling yourself independent, was never legitimatized by the US Federal government*, and the precedent was set after the civil war that no future acts of secession through similar means would be tolerated.

The fantasy is believing otherwise.

*Ironic given America's founding, but still a precedent set after the Confederacy sought to secede through military means.

Where does any document say it has to be "legitimized?" What you Lincoln cult turds have consistently failed to do is prove that there is the slightest evidence that the Constitution prohibits secession. The "precedent," as you call it, was a brutal invasion. Apparently the Nazi's set the "precedent" that it's OK to invade your neighbours and slaughter millions of unpopular minorities.

Apparently liberals posses the moral code of mass murderers.

Ignoring history again. A treaty in Paris acknowledged US secession from the British Empire in 1784, after the war of independence. And treaties have guaranteed the independence of certain states by major powers for centuries.

If you don't believe treaties allow secession, then on the same basis you must believe the US and Great Britain are still at war or that the UK doesn't recognize US independence, as a treaty acknowledged US secession.

If the confederacy had won the civil war, then it is by treaty that the US government, would have given the Confederacy acknowledgment of its independence. Keep digging holes in your arguments.

And another 'Nazi' claim. How many times are you going to use logical fallacies in this thread, as it is getting repetitive.

Since you demanded Thanator prove your posts aren't factually correct, I am still waiting on you providing evidence that everyone that doesn't agree with you endorses 'mass murder'.

The treaty of Paris was signed after the Colonies won the revolution on the battlefield, numskull.

If the South had won the Civil War, then the it wouldn't matter what documents the Union government signed. The treaty would just be a formality. Their independence would be a fact whether the Union government recognized it or not.

 

[bripat9643]

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

Correct, which is why the federal government has no authority to prevent a state from leaving.

 

[bripat9643]

The Supreme Court has ruled secession unconstitutional.

Not strictly true. It never declared secession achieved through Congressional and Presidential measures as 'illegal'.

Though what was achieved in the civil war was a precedent, that were a state to secede without Congressional and Presidential measures in it's favor, then said state would not be recognized as an independent nation by the US government - as a result the Federal government would view such a state as either in open rebellion or in a form of public disorder (and could respond as empowered by the US constitution and Federal laws to 'bring it into line').

In other words, might makes right.

Do you turds ever wonder why people keep telling you that you're a bunch of Nazis?

Hey dumb fuck how do you think our nation was formed?

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

So you agree that might makes right? Was it OK for Hitler to invade Poland and France?

You really are a dumbass.

Hitler is just like your confederate heroes it is also why he lost

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

How are the Confederates like Hitler? As a matter of fact, Hitler greatly admired Lincoln and learned a lot from Lincoln, like how to set up concentration camps and how to wage total war on the civilian population.

Furthermore, you didn't answer the question: was it OK for Hitler to invade Poland and France?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

 

[hipeter924]

Thanks for proving my point about the 10th amendment. Now that you are more educated go and learn some more. Ignorance is not a good thing the live in

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

 

[RKMBrown]

I cannot figure out if you choose to not understand his argument or you do not have the capacity to do so.
Which is it?

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

 

[regent]

On your board game, did the Court rule on the treaty? Would the president then follow the Court's decision? Would the president then again use power to prevent secession?
Are you moving little pawns around in the squares of your game? Do you have chance cards too?

 

[bripat9643]

On your board game, did the Court rule on the treaty? Would the president then follow the Court's decision? Would the president then again use power to prevent secession?
Are you moving little pawns around in the squares of your game? Do you have chance cards too?

What the fuck are you babbling about? You're the one who made up the ridiculous scenario where the South beats the North on the battlefield but then signs a treaty with it.

 

[hipeter924]

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

OK....
And where does the constitution give Congress the power to "allow" a state t leave?

The Constution allows Congress, the House, and Presidency, control over US domestic and foreign affairs, especially the right to pass laws and treaties. It doesn't say anything about not allowing a state to leave, upon the approval of the US government.

So... you cannot cite the text of the constitution that gives Congress (or anyone else) the power to allow a state to leave.
Can you cite the text of the constitution that prohibits a state from leaving?

The US constution does not mention secession of US states within the document, and I never implied it did. The civil war however, did result in unilateral secession being ruled unlawful - or in the very least a guarantee that if a state attempted to unilaterally secede again that the US military was allowed to respond to that threat to keep it in the union.

 

[hipeter924]

He doesn't have a argument he is just plain wrong about the 10th amendment.
Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

 

[RKMBrown]

He does.
You either choose to not understand it or you do not possess the capacity to do so.
There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits the states from leaving, therefore the power to do so it reserved. Quit simple.
How is it wrong?

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS and all your major cities go up in ashes... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

 

[hipeter924]

On your board game, did the Court rule on the treaty? Would the president then follow the Court's decision? Would the president then again use power to prevent secession?
Are you moving little pawns around in the squares of your game? Do you have chance cards too?

What the fuck are you babbling about? You're the one who made up the ridiculous scenario where the South beats the North on the battlefield but then signs a treaty with it.

What do you think happened in Paris in 1784? The US and British Empire signed a treaty that acknowledged the independent status of the US. But in your revisionist history that never happened right?

 

[hipeter924]

A state like Texas could secede how every other state attempts to secede, through act or acknowledgment of the central/federal government.

How it would work:
1) Texas holds a referendum on leaving the United States by ballot measure.
2) Texas representives acknowledge the referendum.
3) A bill is put to US House and Senate over Texas secession.
4) The bill passes and is sent to the President for approval.
5) US declares Texas as an independent, and acknowledges secession.
6) Various treaties are signed to that effect between Texas and the US.

Obviously relies on three branches of government to approve it, so it isn't an easy process, but it isn't impossible either.

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

 

[RKMBrown]

2.5 Texas demands a bill be put to the US House and Senate over Texas secession or fight a nuclear war... just sayin..

Pretty sure those silos are run by the Federal government, so I wouldn't count on having them on the bargaining table.

Texas would have better luck putting it to ballot, than waving nukes though, as if Texas ever pushed the button it is likely the US military would assault the silos and shut them down. Of course the first volley would kill millions, then the civil war killed many for the population of the US at the time.

If the GOP claims that it believes that Texas has a right to secede, it should hold a referendum in Texas, and put out a bill in Congress, rather than just rage about it to win votes.

So you're saying MAD does not work? Who knew?

Not if a side believes the losses are 'acceptable'. If Texas launches 4 nukes, but the US military shuts them down via a strike on the silos (by air/land/sea), then MAD would be no guarantee.

In a global context, counter measures to missiles is only a matter of time, and all you need is a country that believes that a amount of losses are acceptable for victory, for MAD to be rendered ineffective.

I don't think MAD works the say you think it does... you make a move on TEXAS 100 nukes fly... I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

Depends on how many of those nukes are under Federal control, and can you find operators in Texas (or an other state) that would gleefully push a button to kill millions of fellow Americans?

The north has already shown that it is willing to send armies to kill southerners. The point would be you send them again and you loose your cities. It's called mad.. if you want to come kill us again ... we kill you this time. Just pointing out how Mutually Assured Destruction works.