Uhh, help. My state is breaking off with other state away from the USA

Originally posted by TDawgRex
But the Constitution is law. And nowhere does it say that states can secede.

It does however give them rights to govern themselves locally.

you are absolutely correct... nowhere in the Constitution does it address secession

with that in mind, according to the 10th Amendment, if a State legislature ratified upon sucession, it is within their rghts to do so. Regardless of any Federal rulings tha might say otherwise.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Honor93
well yes, you cannot discuss the Constitution without the Bill of Rights.
while the BoR stands independent of the Constitution, the Constitution does not stand independent of the BoR.

what about the Amendments ??
are they laws ? - no
have they changed over the years ? - yes
are they permanent once ratified ? - no
please ask a more specific question.

Hmmm, So the amendments are the not law, but the basis for law?

I know that they can be changed.

But if they are not law, why do we see people in court all the time citing a violation of free speech?

Or using the fifth in a attempt to protect themselves or others?

These cases reach the SCOTUS quite often. Such as McDonald v. Chicago, which involved the 2d Amendment.

When I see such cases being addressed, I will admit that I see the issue as both about rights and law.

Intertwined, yet seperate? Is that what you are saying?

no, British common law is the basis of practiced American law.
the Constitution and its Amendments are supposed to protect the people from errant laws (those that conflict with the principle of the agreement)

does that make sense to you ?

But if they are not law, why do we see people in court all the time citing a violation of free speech?

the easiest way to explain this is ... arrest is for breaking a law (not the Constitution) ... appearance in court is to resolve the arrest. (so far so good ? )

now, the argument before the court becomes the "law" violates the Constitutional protection of free speech.

if, the arrest, based on an 'errant law', is found to be in violation of said protections, the case is dismissed or referred for further remedy. did i explain this well enough ?

Or using the fifth in a attempt to protect themselves or others

the 5th is a protection one can assert at all times, in all situations, problem is, most can't keep their mouths shut long enough to exercise said protection (self included)

now hold on there, discussing specifics of a specific case is another ball game all together. specific cases aren't always rendered correctly, are they ? like the Dredd Scott decision, these are decisions based on interpretations, not law specifically.

from these decisions eminate more useless laws.

intertwined yet separate ?? uhhh, kinda sorta, not really.
definitive, yet constantly under attack is how i view it.

ETA -- regarding what the poster above me said ...

you are absolutely correct... nowhere in the Constitution does it address secession

he is actually wrong but right at the same time.

to secede or not is always the right of the people/states ... regardless what the Feds say or do.
no matter how many errant laws are passed stating otherwise.
he is wrong, as this IS included in the opening statement of the Constitution (BoR) ...

constitution.org...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, [color=amber]it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

if the bold isn't a direct instruction to commit secession based on need, not desire, then what else is necessary ?

reply to post by Honor93


Thanks for your input. If you lived in Ohio, I would love to buy you a dinner and discuss this more. Laws, Religions, ideology, etc almost always boils down to interpretation or perspective.

As much as I wish things were black and white, they rarely are.

Now my head hurts.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Honor93

 

Thanks for your input. If you lived in Ohio, I would love to buy you a dinner and discuss this more. Laws, Religions, ideology, etc almost always boils down to interpretation or perspective.

As much as I wish things were black and white, they rarely are.

Now my head hurts.

when i get up to that area to visit, i'll be sure to collect on that dinner invitation
in the meantime, we have this wonderful community to discuss it to our heart's desire.
thank you ATS.

yes, religions, ideology and the like are versatile in that manner.
however, i am of the opinion that Unalienable rights never are, regardless one's opinion, interpretation or dogma.

reply to post by Honor93


Trying to project into the future, if the 50 states break away, then recreate a new one, would the ones in place be ones who are doing it for the money, or for the honor?

However, expanding out, it's more than breaking away, we break away form the UN (Great idea), and we'll be treated like a new country, all ties to other countries will be severed and they will have to be renewed (sucks to be the new guy)..

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Honor93

 

Trying to project into the future, if the 50 states break away, then recreate a new one, would the ones in place be ones who are doing it for the money, or for the honor?

However, expanding out, it's more than breaking away, we break away form the UN (Great idea), and we'll be treated like a new country, all ties to other countries will be severed and they will have to be renewed (sucks to be the new guy)..

i believe your own imagination is getting the best of you.

if there is no Federal government to provide "money", what else would they be doing it for other than honor, freedom, liberty and to exercise their Unalienable rights ?

if all 50 states were to actively secede, what "right" does the Fed have to say no ?
the Fed govt rights/privileges are spelled out in the Constitution or are you presuming they will take rights not granted to them ? (it's not like it'd be the first time or anything)

the entire structure would have to be re-established (and in some places, re-built) ... in that, you are completely correct.
keep in mind, i am not a fan of No Govt, however, this government structure has got to go.

yes, leaving the UN would be fantastic for most Americans.
however, simply seceding won't achieve that either.
seceding is only a first step, although a big one, it is not the last one.