Can a State secede from the "Union" ? The new revolution, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 11:52 AM by atreides
reply to post by trueperspective



This is a rather sunny outlook on things.

In 2008 Bob Barr turned in enough petition signatures to be listed as a candidate for President on the New Hampshire ballot.

He was not listed as a candidate.

New Hampshire officials said they had "lost" the petitions. Barr sued to be placed on the N.H. ballot. The final judgment in the case was that the state had, indeed, lost the paperwork but that no remedy would be provided the Barr campaign.

This is situationally endemic and not an isolated instance.

Regardless of Barr's statistical chances of winning, if candidates who meet the legal qualifications to run are not allowed to run through repeated and frequent "accidents" and "clerical errors", free elections are not occurring.


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 12:03 PM by Tanulis
As stated before, I think the issue of secession was cleared up after the Civil War.

Link:
en.wikipedia.org...

''Discussions and threats of secession have often surfaced in American politics, but only in the case of the Confederate States of America was secession actually declared. A 2008 Zogby International poll revealed that 22% of Americans believe that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic."[30][31] The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States."


[edit on 1-4-2010 by Tanulis]


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 12:27 PM by trueperspective
reply to post by atreides



I was unaware of such things. Thanks for the info. The only thing I guess I can say is that there still isnt ever going to be a way to "win" the government back through armed conflict.


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 12:29 PM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by atreides



I agree that a perfectly 'lawful' agreement of separation can be met dissolving a relationship between parties. That's nice and all. What my point was is that is no 'lawful' agreement can be met, no treaty signed (which itself wouldnt be absolute) the option to ignore any legal course and simply cast off the governing entity is not impossible. It may result in violent conflict or economic sabotage but still whether legal or not at that point it doesnt matter.

Like if you ground a child. Sure that kid may not be allowed to go out on Saturday but there isnt anything short of physical restraint that is going to guarantee the child does not simply ignore the 'law' as you have set it forth and just go out Saturday night anyway.

Law is imaginary.

My favorite example of this is in an episode of the Simpsons. Homer loses his driver's license and despite that is about to drive a car. Lisa says "Dad you can't drive. You don't have your license." Homer responds with "I have to try." To his amazement the car starts and he drives off sans license to do so.


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 12:35 PM by atreides
Originally posted by trueperspective
reply to
post by atreides



I was unaware of such things. Thanks for the info. The only thing I guess I can say is that there still isnt ever going to be a way to "win" the government back through armed conflict.


I'd generally agree with that except for two situational scenarios -

(a) a crippling, destabilizing event that were to precede an armed conflict; most likely a naturally occurring catastrophe of some type, less likely an engineered event such as Koro - in this situation is would be functionally impossible for the many competing ideological fronts to gain control of a unified continent, though

(b) the restraint of civil authority by an internal actor as through a coup, though, Edward Luttwak correctly notes the decentralization of military-police authority in the United States would make a coup a logistical impossibility in the near future


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 12:37 PM by atreides
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to
post by atreides



I agree that a perfectly 'lawful' agreement of separation can be met dissolving a relationship between parties. That's nice and all. What my point was is that is no 'lawful' agreement can be met, no treaty signed (which itself wouldnt be absolute) the option to ignore any legal course and simply cast off the governing entity is not impossible. It may result in violent conflict or economic sabotage but still whether legal or not at that point it doesnt matter.

Like if you ground a child. Sure that kid may not be allowed to go out on Saturday but there isnt anything short of physical restraint that is going to guarantee the child does not simply ignore the 'law' as you have set it forth and just go out Saturday night anyway.

Law is imaginary.

My favorite example of this is in an episode of the Simpsons. Homer loses his driver's license and despite that is about to drive a car. Lisa says "Dad you can't drive. You don't have your license." Homer responds with "I have to try." To his amazement the car starts and he drives off sans license to do so.


I think you're making a point that is separate from the topic of discussion.


reply posted on 1-4-2010 @ 12:48 PM by Toot Sweet
1. Is there a law forbidding any State of the "Union" from deciding to secede from the Union ? Yes. The Alien and Sedition Acts (latter doesn't apply in KY or VA)

2. Is there a clause withing the Constitution that forbids any State from seceding from the Union ? No

3. Is there a right in the Constitution that allows for any rights not given to the central government to belong to the States, and would that also mean States do have a Constitutional right to secede from the Union if they choose to do so ? Yes

But if you REALLY want some "teeth" to bolster a State's right to seek their own destiny, you'll check out the language that Thomas Jefferson included when he framed the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and the language that James Madison included when he framed the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 & 1799.

en.wikipedia.org...

The resolutions opposed the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, that extended the powers of the federal government. They argued that the Constitution was a "compact" or agreement among the states. Therefore, the federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it and that if the federal government assumed such powers, acts under them would be void. So, states could decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

A key provision of the Kentucky Resolutions was Resolution 2, that denied Congress more than a few penal powers:

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags
Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags