Louisiana to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government

Originally posted by Hefficide

Not a chance. But it might get a bit of publicity for the Conservatives in the that region. And will make the petitioner, Michael E Slidell a bit more locally famous I'd imagine.

According to the Google he's a restaurant owner.

However... No. There are federal laws to prevent secession from the Union.

~Heff

There are no federal laws preventing secession!

We won't get the signatures....

Texas / La. makes more sense, "Texiana"

Now...B Jindal for President of Louisiana? Not such a good idea....Louisiana "old school" politics are alive and well here, folks.

BHO won't even spend 1 minute considering this nonsense even if we did get the signatures.

I checked out the link provided for Texas secession....it is on the whitehouse.gov site, and you must "register" with this site in order to sign a petition.

Like I'm going to give them my personal info and my prediliction towards secession. Just more fodder for the fusion centers. Thanks, but no thanks. Why do I need permission from the whitehouse to sign a petition telling them to get stuffed??

If the Louisiana petition is on the same site, this may explain why it doesn't have more signatures.

Originally posted by Hefficide


According to the Google he's a restaurant owner.

No relation to Napoleon ?



Louisiana wants to become part of France again?

C'est la vie......

reply to post by FissionSurplus


In order for any petition to hold any legal ground, the signatures must be validated. I highly doubt that Internet petitions where people sign anonymously fit the definition.

www.freeuslaw.com...

Unless it is a petition with certain legal requirements, such as one where you are running for office and need a certain number of signatures, petitions are very informal affairs. However, you should clearly state the purpose of the petition at the top, and the signatures should be authentic, with some identifying information, such as an address, particularly if it's jurisdictional. Finally, petitions aren't so much legal documents, but simply a way of showing someone you have support for the issue or issues. If you can verify that the support you have through signatures is authentic, you should be on solid grounds.

www.useful-community-development.org...

Of course, if you're following a legal petition process, include any information required by law for the petition to be valid (examples would be mailing address, precinct number, and so forth), and make sure that those who sign include all data needed.

In the petition in the OP, it seems this would be more for the purpose of a protest or a survey showing how many people would support such a move. I doubt they could do anything legal with the results.

I am very sure that if a legal petition was started for a state secession, only legal residents of the state would be allowed to vote, and would need to identify themselves as such.

If I were the president I would fully support this and allow it.
I would not interfere with that new country in any way (unless they were coming over the border to kill of course). I would do that to show the rest of the country and the world that the very minimal, no regulation government some want simply doesn't work.
I don't think it would be more than 5 years before their government collapsed or their citizens revolted and then I'd welcome them back into the US.

writ.news.findlaw.com...

Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

This is a very interesting article about what would be required for a state secession.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Q33323
United we stand. Divided we fall.

The commies are hoping for the latter.

I guess you missed the commies celebrating their victory Tuesday night.

Over half of the American electorate are Commies; I had no idea that democrats were Communists. What are the other half?

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by Q33323
United we stand. Divided we fall.

The commies are hoping for the latter.

I guess you missed the commies celebrating their victory Tuesday night.

Over half of the American electorate are Commies; I had no idea that democrats were Communists. What are the other half?

edit on 10-11-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)

Misunderstood.


(bazinga)

In 1941 a group proposed to secede Northern California and Southern Oregon from their respective states and create the State of Jefferson. References remain throughout the region today. The citizens felt that they hadn't equal representation in the legislative process, and over regulation in Salem and Sacramento was adversely detrimental to the area. The movement lost steam when Pearl harbor was bombed and national unity was imperative.
www.jeffersonstate.com...

Originally posted by Hefficide

Not a chance. But it might get a bit of publicity for the Conservatives in the that region. And will make the petitioner, Michael E Slidell a bit more locally famous I'd imagine.

According to the Google he's a restaurant owner.

However... No. There are federal laws to prevent secession from the Union.

~Heff

Here is an interesting question...

What would happen if EVERYONE in Louisiana and Texas join an Indian tribe that has a treaty with the US? There are a couple of tribes that will accept anyone as a full tribal member....

Originally posted by BlueAjah

Yet as we saw in our discussion of unilateral secession, despite granting Congress the power to admit new states, the Constitution says nothing about secession. And under the Tenth Amendment, silence in such matters means there is no federal power: Powers not enumerated "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

This is a very interesting article about what would be required for a state secession.

When a State disobeys Federal laws then federal funds are held in ransom until the State complies. So if a State removes themselves from the Union what other than the loss of federal funding would happen?

Originally posted by RottenBeauty
If I were the president I would fully support this and allow it.
I would not interfere with that new country in any way (unless they were coming over the border to kill of course). I would do that to show the rest of the country and the world that the very minimal, no regulation government some want simply doesn't work.
I don't think it would be more than 5 years before their government collapsed or their citizens revolted and then I'd welcome them back into the US.

I kind of think it would be the other way around...if a good number of States left the Union and formed their own union... they would just sit back and watch America struggle with it still bloated Government and 16 trillion dollar bill that is due.

Why does it make me think of this?;

reply to post by Xtrozero


I suppose they would no longer be regulated by US Federal law. And they would also no longer be protected by the US.

There would definitely be severe repercussions. If there are sincerely urgent reasons prompting a state to make this decision, they would likely want to have some kind of treaty with the US regarding the relationship, especially for land-locked states. But, if they had such negative feelings about the Federal government that they would want to secede, I'm not sure how amicable a separation it would be, or what kind of treaty would be possible.

Hell, I encourage them to give it a go.

See, this is why education is important. Had these twits read a history book, say America 1860s, they would realize this isn't really a great idea.

I would support this. Not because I support government, but because I would support anything that leads to less centralised government. The further government is broken down into localised authority, the more autonomy communities have.

The push at the moment is towards more global authority, power more centralised. The more centralised power becomes the less control local communities have over their own affairs.

It's got nothing to do with diversity. Centralised government destroys diversity. It destroys culture. It wants everyone to think the same way, to have the same desires. It makes us easier to manipulate and control.

Take prop 215 for an example. Legal in some places by local law, but still illegal by federal law. Who should hold the right to make those decisions? Local authority who know what their community wants and needs, or an outside authority who doesn't care what you need?

This kind of talk needs to be suppressed and silenced immediately.

Tax Slaves dreaming of freedom,
if these kind of dreams are allowed to spread
the next thing you know criminals that have ignored the law,
and have not been caught yet,
will be petitioning the government,
wanting amnesty.

Originally posted by Signals
We won't get the signatures....

Texas / La. makes more sense, "Texiana"

Now...B Jindal for President of Louisiana? Not such a good idea....Louisiana "old school" politics are alive and well here, folks.

BHO won't even spend 1 minute considering this nonsense even if we did get the signatures.

No, you sure won't get them. In most areas that are away from the larger cities, most folks do get some sort of government aid. It isn't uncommon for families to have at least one person on disability, to help make ends meet, or because they just don't want to work.

Even if they did get all the signatures, 3/4 of the state would leave because they love their government bennies!

Originally posted by WhoDat09
reply to post by FissionSurplus

 

I'm not sure about that, we have the Port of New Orleans where 500 million tons of cargo pass through here every year.

Well, that would be the first change the government would make after Louisiana left the United States, there are many other places that imports can be brought into the USA.