why not break up the US into 10 smaller countries?

[orogenicman]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Ahem:

StateMaster - Statistics on Mississippi. facts and figures stats and information on economy crime people government health and education. 11 maps and 13 flags


The 2004, per capita income of Mississippi is 51st in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia), and has one of the highest percentages of the population below the poverty level.

 

[orogenicman]

So what you advocate is anti-Americanism. Got it.

Not at all. I advocate following the constitution and if the federal govt violates the constitution then the states have the right to secede.

Now, do I think that will ever happen, NO

You said stop fed taxes. But the Federal government has a constitutional right to collect taxes. And so what you are advocating is a threat to the constitutional powers of the United States.

the fed govt also has a constitutional duty to follow the constitution. If the fed govt commits treason do the citizens still have a duty to support it?

Who convicts the 'fed govt' of treason?

The people.

Show us the survey results.

 

[orogenicman]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Again, apparently some here have forgotten that the Civil War is over. Moreover, some have forgotten who won that war (and more importantly, who lost).

 

[orogenicman]

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

So what, when part of a country secedes, it ignores the rules of the old country. Do you know anything about american history?

Yes. I know who won the Civil War. Do you?

The country won and the country lost. The civil war accomplished nothing but the deaths of thousands of americans. There are no winners and losers in civil wars, everyone loses.

Which is why you should be careful what you wish for.

 

[orogenicman]

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

and the "conservative" states would be successful, safe, and fiscally sound. While the "liberal states would all look like Detroit or Baltimore.

Lets do it.

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Successful like Mississippi? lol

Have you ever been to Mississippi? It is quite successful. New York city has more in poverty than MS.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

would it matter if the succeeding states had more military power? You are not right.

That wouldn't make it legal or constitutional.

The British considered the declaration of independence an illegal act. Do you know anything?

Of course secession would be considered illegal, but so what?

it's not a he, she is a girl, I do appreciate her following the rules of law and the constitution, but again nothing stopping a few states getting more military might and leaving. It happened all the time in history.

Except the legal, economic, and military might of the rest of the country. I know. Details, details.

 

[orogenicman]

No its not. The Russians all thought of themselves as Russian. The Soviet Union was not torn apart by tribalism.

And that is not going to happen here.

and you know that how?

He knows it the same Gobachev and King George III knew it.

Show me the percentage of Americans who actively seek to dissolve the United States and you'll then know why it is not going to happen here.

How many people were actively seeking to end slavery in 1850?

So what you are saying is that you don't actually have a point. I knew this already.

 

[orogenicman]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

Nope.

No You Cannot Secede From The United States - Business Insider

But can states actually secede?

Not without a fight.

And we all know how that ended.

In 1978, Kenneth M. Stampp, who some believe to be the greatest Civil War historian of the 20th century, wrote that the constitution is actually silent on secession — and so in theory, the claims for secession were as strong as the ones against it.

As Daniel Hamilton, the co-director of the University of Illinois' Legal History Program, recently wrote in a symposium on the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War:

Stampp poses the question: “was secession unconstitutional?” And answers with, to my mind, a salutary and even correct answer: “we don’t know.”

In the same symposium, Stephen C. Neff, a professor at the Edinburgh Law School, said the South used a "breach-of-compact theory" to justify secession. Southern legislatures asserted America was fundamentally a contractual union between sovereign states:

... which retained all aspects of their sovereignty after entry into the Union, save those that they had expressly delegated to the federal government. That original Constitutional contract—or compact—like any other contract, retained its legal validity only so long as the parties continued faithfully to adhere to it. Any breach of the compact by parties to it automatically entitled the innocent parties to withdraw from the arrangement.

But Neff adds: "Support for this line of argument in the text of the Constitution itself was altogether absent."

As it turns out, the question ended up not being litigated in the Supreme Court —as would usually be done when states challenge federal law — but fought over for five bloody years.

Neff:

In 1871, Justice Joseph P. Bradley of the federal Supreme Court pronounced it to have been “definitely and forever overthrown.” What Justice Bradley tactfully left unmentioned was that overthrow had taken place on the fields of battle rather than in the panelled rooms of courts or legislatures. The question of the nature of the federal Union, in event, proved to be neither a judicial nor a political question, but a military one.

Are there any modern examples of states attempting to forcefully ignore federal law? Say, failing to implement school integration? Arkansas tried that in 1957, and failed.

What about Texas, which according to legend retains its own special secession clause? Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase settled that question all the way back in 1869:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

So sorry, angry states: this is probably a dead end.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Sometimes the reason to ask an idiotic mindless ridiculous useless "question" is just to ask that idiotic mindless ridiculous useless "question" I guess.

Maybe prison.con/nut can elucidate that for us sane people.

It is truly amazing how perspectives can change.

I've known you as a poster, here and elsewhere, for 7 or 8 years, and I could never have imagined that a time would come that comparatively, you would be one of the more sane posters on the other side.

I am impressed and delighted.

I don't think I have changed.

Evidently, your perception has simply developed and matured.

I am happy for you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Again, apparently some here have forgotten that the Civil War is over. Moreover, some have forgotten who won that war (and more importantly, who lost).

You are a moron , were not talking the civil war idiot, nothing to prevent states from succeeding if they have more military might. Hence see the revolution war.

 

[Redfish]

No my AV my real picture, my blue pit and me

We know which is the intelligent one of the two.

it's like driving miss daisy with you.

My offer is still on the table, IM me I will send you a plane ticket to Greenville SC one of the fastest rising cities in the south.

According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina.

The only Blue state on each list: New Mexico.

By the way, 9 of the 10 states with the highest per-person income voted Blue in the 2012 presidential race: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Washington. The only Red state on the list: Alaska.

Pro-Democrat group says 9 of the 10 poorest states are Republican PolitiFact Rhode Island

oh Fucking please, you never bothered to equate the power of the dollar in red states compared to blue states , dumb fuck



Again my smokes are $1.19 a pack for 20

Here that, idiot NeoClowns? You can kill yourself for less in South Carolina. Yahoooo!

South Carolina ranks # 42 in education.

Duh "here that" seems like you are the one lacking education. LOL

 

[Wyatt earp]

We know which is the intelligent one of the two.

it's like driving miss daisy with you.

My offer is still on the table, IM me I will send you a plane ticket to Greenville SC one of the fastest rising cities in the south.

According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.

And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina.

The only Blue state on each list: New Mexico.

By the way, 9 of the 10 states with the highest per-person income voted Blue in the 2012 presidential race: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Washington. The only Red state on the list: Alaska.

Pro-Democrat group says 9 of the 10 poorest states are Republican PolitiFact Rhode Island

oh Fucking please, you never bothered to equate the power of the dollar in red states compared to blue states , dumb fuck



Again my smokes are $1.19 a pack for 20

Here that, idiot NeoClowns? You can kill yourself for less in South Carolina. Yahoooo!

South Carolina ranks # 42 in education.

Duh "here that" seems like you are the one lacking education. LOL

yup liberals can never do math, they can not figure out what buying power means.

 

[Redfish]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

what specifically do you see as the risk? Would the US govt send the army to kill the secessionists?

Wouldn't be the first time.

you don't even understand what the civil war was about. Hint: not slavery.

 

[Redfish]

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

So what, when part of a country secedes, it ignores the rules of the old country. Do you know anything about american history?

Yes. I know who won the Civil War. Do you?

The country won and the country lost. The civil war accomplished nothing but the deaths of thousands of americans. There are no winners and losers in civil wars, everyone loses.

Which is why you should be careful what you wish for.

as should you

 

[Carla_Danger]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

what specifically do you see as the risk? Would the US govt send the army to kill the secessionists?

Wouldn't be the first time.

you don't even understand what the civil war was about. Hint: not slavery.

More bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

what specifically do you see as the risk? Would the US govt send the army to kill the secessionists?

Wouldn't be the first time.

you don't even understand what the civil war was about. Hint: not slavery.

More bullshit.

poor little carla, dumb as a sack of frog feet.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The blue. states will never get my talent again, I will teach these dumb rednecks how to beat the blue states. ....


With the last breath I take and I am not the only one, who hates democrats and unions.

The big dummy prefers "right-to-get-paid-less" states.

LOL, @ "the blue states will never get my talent again." What talent is that?

 

[CowboyTed]

To what end?

Tyranny of the majority. Conservatives are in the minority at the national level. If they could create smaller countries, enclaves of conservatism so to speak,

they could become the majority in those new states and thus impose their will.

It's really what states' rights come down to.

But the conservative states will be bankrupt within a generation... The conservative states finances not much better than greece...

Without their federal daddy bailing them out they will go bankrupt...

To the Liberal states it will like mexico just moved a thousand miles north...

 

[orogenicman]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

Secession is patently illegal. Unconstitutional.

I never could understand why the left thinks like that. If a few states wanted to do it, had the military power to do it. Nothing to stop it.


Country's have been broken up all through history.

Again, apparently some here have forgotten that the Civil War is over. Moreover, some have forgotten who won that war (and more importantly, who lost).

You are a moron , were not talking the civil war idiot, nothing to prevent states from succeeding if they have more military might. Hence see the revolution war.

We've addressed this already. No state has the legal, moral, economic, nor military ability to secede successfully from the United States. It would invariably lead to another civil war which IT would badly lose. Get over it. Try playing nice for a change. Who knows? You might actually learn something about living with other humans.

 

[orogenicman]

Alaska would be the state most likely to secede. Then possibly a combination of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and a few more southern and central states.

And they make the attempt at their own risk.

what specifically do you see as the risk? Would the US govt send the army to kill the secessionists?

Wouldn't be the first time.

you don't even understand what the civil war was about. Hint: not slavery.

Actually, I know far more about it than you think I do. Hint: You brought up slavery, dude. I said nothing about it.

 

[orogenicman]

Their action would be neither legal nor constitutional. That's all I said. I am right.

So what, when part of a country secedes, it ignores the rules of the old country. Do you know anything about american history?

Yes. I know who won the Civil War. Do you?

The country won and the country lost. The civil war accomplished nothing but the deaths of thousands of americans. There are no winners and losers in civil wars, everyone loses.

Which is why you should be careful what you wish for.

as should you

Right. I should be careful wishing that we could all just live in peace. What a dangerous idea, eh?