Information about secession?

[Random]

OK, quick question. Does anyone know if there are any serious groups currently devoted to the legal secession of New England from the rest of the Union? I would be interested in any groups pushing for that goal or the goal of adding an amendment to the constitution allowing for the secession of states.

(And before Shanek automatically chimes in with “it’s legal cause it’s not in the Constitution�, I want to say I am aware of that technicality, but there seems to be some historical disagreement on that point. It got quite loud in the 1860’s from what I hear.)

[Magyar]

I don't know of one, but I'd be interested in starting one.
What would it's constitution and declaration look like?

Would it ban 1inchrist from entering it's sovereign territory on the penalty of death?


lets make a list!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why bother to secede for a lousy four years? Just stick it out and have fun with it.

My new motto: Mock the Theocracy!

~~ Paul

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Random
OK, quick question. Does anyone know if there are any serious groups currently devoted to the legal secession of New England from the rest of the Union? I would be interested in any groups pushing for that goal or the goal of adding an amendment to the constitution allowing for the secession of states.

Can California join you? A country separated into two pieces by the land of a second nation is not unheard of historically.

We'd be an asset to you: We're the world's 7th largest economy, and we just voted in funding for stem cell research. The droning heads on TV right now are talking about a potential "westward brain drain".

Furthermore, if we can convince Washington and Oregon to join up, we'd have the Pacific coast locked up. Anybody living in the western part of the United States of Jesus (U.S.J.) would have have to pass through the Republic of Rationalia (R.R.) in order to go to the beach.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Vorticity
Furthermore, if we can convince Washington and Oregon to join up, we'd have the Pacific coast locked up. Anybody living in the western part of the United States of Jesus (U.S.J.) would have have to pass through the Republic of Rationalia (R.R.) in order to go to the beach. Count me in. Secession should be an easy sell here in WA, at least west of the cascades.

[BPSCG]

Uh-uh - you ain't going nowhere.

This is one country. We settled that once and for all in a small town in southern Virginia in April, 1865. Our country's statement of principles says we're trying to form "a more perfect union", not a more fragmented one.

If you don't like how this country is being run, you have three choices:

1) Work to change it;
2) Accept it the way it is, or;
3) Leave.

You can take option 3), if you want. But you're not taking part of my country with you.

Now quit your whining, you puling, gutless coward. If you don't like the way things are, persuade me and 49.999999999% of the rest of the country we should do things your way, and quit acting like a spoiled brat who wants to pick up his toys and leave.

Jeezum crow...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Random
OK, quick question. Does anyone know if there are any serious groups currently devoted to the legal secession of New England from the rest of the Union? I would be interested in any groups pushing for that goal or the goal of adding an amendment to the constitution allowing for the secession of states.

(And before Shanek automatically chimes in with “it’s legal cause it’s not in the Constitution�, I want to say I am aware of that technicality, but there seems to be some historical disagreement on that point. It got quite loud in the 1860’s from what I hear.)

In retrospect, it might not have been such a hot idea to prevent the succession during the 1860s. Although there were some nice side effects, like the ending of slavery and the development of modern surgery.

That's still probably the way it should go. New England keeps separation of Church and State, and the South can become the Holy Protestant Empire.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Now quit your whining, you puling, gutless coward. I for one am having some fun and fully realize this thread is folly. So take your highly pompous bag of air elsewhere.

[The Don]

Speaking as an Englishman, I'd be happy to welcome you back into the fold if you should wish to reconsider your act of folly back in 1776. After all it's surely an omen that 86 years of Bosox disappointment and 128 years of Middlesbrough disappointment are ended in the same year.

[Tmy]

If we leave do we HAVE to take New Hampshire too??? There sooooo annoying with that "live free or die" troublemaking attitude.;)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by BPSCG

1) Work to change it;
2) Accept it the way it is, or;
3) Leave.


4) My evil plan. Hire all the mexicans and give them shovels to fill buckets with US siol and throw the soil into the ocean.

[Random]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Uh-uh - you ain't going nowhere.

This is one country. We settled that once and for all in a small town in southern Virginia in April, 1865. Our country's statement of principles says we're trying to form "a more perfect union", not a more fragmented one.

If you don't like how this country is being run, you have three choices:

1) Work to change it;
2) Accept it the way it is, or;
3) Leave.

You can take option 3), if you want. But you're not taking part of my country with you.

Now quit your whining, you puling, gutless coward. If you don't like the way things are, persuade me and 49.999999999% of the rest of the country we should do things your way, and quit acting like a spoiled brat who wants to pick up his toys and leave.

Jeezum crow...

That’s the problem, we have been telling all the people in the square states why they are wrong and what they need to do right. They refuse to listen to us and then we are given a load of grief for being latte-drinking, tax and spend liberals. Meanwhile the SSitM suck up the tax dollars of New Englanders like greedy little parasites, all the while telling us we are unAmerican.

After a certain point, the burdens the Central government places on its principalities may become too much to reasonably bear. If that happens, I would like to have a clear, orderly mechanism for secession to be laid out ahead of time.

[roger]

Originally posted by The Don
Speaking as an Englishman, I'd be happy to welcome you back into the fold if you should wish to reconsider your act of folly back in 1776. After all it's surely an omen that 86 years of Bosox disappointment and 128 years of Middlesbrough disappointment are ended in the same year. What kind of taxes are you proposing, on say, hmmm, tea?

hint: think carefully before responding.

[The Don]

Originally posted by roger
What kind of taxes are you proposing, on say, hmmm, tea?

hint: think carefully before responding.
Tea tax won't be a problem.

Gas tax will make your nose bleed.

You will get on average 5 weeks vacation a year (plus national holidays).

And you'll get most of the same TV shows

[Random]

Originally posted by Tmy
If we leave do we HAVE to take New Hampshire too??? There sooooo annoying with that "live free or die" troublemaking attitude.;)

Dude! It is the coolest state motto ever!

“Live free, or DIIIIEEEE!�

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by roger
What kind of taxes are you proposing, on say, hmmm, tea?

hint: think carefully before responding.

Forget tea: as soon as Americans realize the Brits have to pay for licenses to have a television, there would be an immediate uprising.

[roger]

That's it! What bull! Everybody, let's throw our TVs into the harbor in protest!!! Who's with me???


Hello?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Random
Dude! It is the coolest state motto ever!

“Live free, or DIIIIEEEE!�

But its so melodramatic. How about "Live Free, or Be Passive Aggressive Towards Your Overlords."

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Random
Dude! It is the coolest state motto ever!

“Live free, or DIIIIEEEE!�

Yeah...I'd rather not associate myself with a state that mentions death right on the license plate. Seems like a bad omen.

[Tmy]

To think. The Blue States made up most of the original 13 colonies. Why the hell did we allow all these ingrate red states into our country!! Damn foreigners!;)

[Magyar]

Hey, could we pass on the hagis??
The beer is good though, New Castle.
Any special taxes on beer we don't know about?

Seriously! Isn't the basic montra of the traditional conservative -
states rights and a limited, if not weak, central govt.?

I've always found this notion a little weird. I mean in the 1700s and even the 1800s it made sense. After all California is farther from MA than any european contry from another and the lack of technology in previous centuries really did make these places a world apart. Therefor it was logical to allow local govt. to rule over most issues.
But in the 20th/21st century, to be so vihemantly be against things like national standards for education, national drivers license and ID cards and national voter registrations and a whole list of other common things that are a given in any other first world country, seems to me, to BE advocating a limited form of secession.


Lets put aside the obvious reasons of self-interest(as in profits, not self preservation) and pork barrel stuff.
What REAL reasons can you offer to oppose the possition of a unified educational standard
national drivers license
national voting standards
and probalby a dozen other things that will pop into my head as soon as I hit post - if in fact we are ONE nation and session is such an abhorrent thought?


Please also lets skip the usual - it's traditional.
And, yes I KNOW it's in the constitution, but that can be changed.
See gay marriage.

OH and if stated have rights - why can't they seceed legally?
I am not aware that the civil war actually answered this question on a legal level.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by varwoche
I for one am having some fun and fully realize this thread is folly. So take your highly pompous bag of air elsewhere. Oh. When Random said, Does anyone know if there are any serious groups... I thought he was, well, serious. Didn't notice any smileys or anything to indicate he was kidding. And if you go to Democratic Underground, you see stuff like that there.

[Snide]

Minnesota's elction for governor is in two years. I plan to run on the platform for the state to join Canada and be renamed, "New Manitoba."

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Magyar


Hey, could we pass on the hagis??
The beer is good though, New Castle.
Any special taxes on beer we don't know about?



Actually it would be more sensible to apply for membership of the EU. You would have the freedom to tax or not tax as you saw fit and you would no longer need to pretend to be Canadians when you go abroad - you would be welcome just as you are.

[Random]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Oh. When Random said, I thought he was, well, serious. Didn't notice any smileys or anything to indicate he was kidding. And if you go to Democratic Underground, you see stuff like that there.

Eh, I was semi-serious. I know that it is an implausible idea at this stage (not enough people are angry enough), but the trend towards increased polarization of views based on geographic area is pretty unmistakable.

I heard the idea mentioned in jest, but when I gave it some thought, there are some good points to be raised. Unfortunately, when I went Googling for more information, I just got a bunch of stuff on the civil war, the war of 1812, and some people who are admittedly nutcases who want California to secede, and or expel Texas.

[Furious]

Originally posted by Snide
Minnesota's elction for governor is in two years. I plan to run on the platform for the state to join Canada and be renamed, "New Manitoba."

I'm game. Can I be your Lt. Gov?

Let's see if we can talk Wisconsin into going too, I like their beer and brats and my sisters lives there.


**** Michigan though. Damn Wolverines always winning that stupid jug.

[Regnad Kcin]

It occurs to me, in viewing the continued "red state" dominance, that, what with the prevalence of overtly Christian and "angry white male" thinking (not to mention the popularity of NASCAR), as well as the disappearance of the Northeast's industrial capabilities, the South actually managed to pull out a victory in the Civil War. It just took 130-150 years is all.

It's the South's country now. Perhaps we shoulda let 'em win in the first place!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Random
OK, quick question. Does anyone know if there are any serious groups currently devoted to the legal secession of New England from the rest of the Union? I would be interested in any groups pushing for that goal or the goal of adding an amendment to the constitution allowing for the secession of states.

(And before Shanek automatically chimes in with “it’s legal cause it’s not in the Constitution�, I want to say I am aware of that technicality, but there seems to be some historical disagreement on that point. It got quite loud in the 1860’s from what I hear.)

Actually, New England cannot secede. The individual states that make up New England would have to secede. Whether or not they can do so depends on their respective state Constitutions.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Random
Eh, I was semi-serious. I know that it is an implausible idea at this stage (not enough people are angry enough), but the trend towards increased polarization of views based on geographic area is pretty unmistakable.

I heard the idea mentioned in jest, but when I gave it some thought, there are some good points to be raised. Unfortunately, when I went Googling for more information, I just got a bunch of stuff on the civil war, the war of 1812, and some people who are admittedly nutcases who want California to secede, and or expel Texas.

I've no problem with expelling Texas. We get to keep the beef though.

MMM.... BEEF.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Vorticity
Can California join you? A country separated into two pieces by the land of a second nation is not unheard of historically.

We'd be an asset to you: We're the world's 7th largest economy,

In about 10 years, that would correct itself, as the more heavily socialist, European style politicians would have much greater control over the base Constitutional form. Lots of cash and large native industries would keep you wealthy for a few years by sheer momentum, but eventually it would collapse under the new weight of the all-intrusive and all-specifying government.

I'm sure the red states would welcome the shifting of massive factory and business operations into their regions.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, New England cannot secede. The individual states that make up New England would have to secede. Whether or not they can do so depends on their respective state Constitutions.

The US Constitution does not allow for secession. 55% of the people wanting to secede would be violating the US rights of the other 45%. Those rights should be protected. Simple majority (as opposed to supermajority) is stupid enough for passing a law; for secession it is complete idiocy.

[Random]

Originally posted by Beerina
The US Constitution does not allow for secession. 55% of the people wanting to secede would be violating the US rights of the other 45%. Those rights should be protected. Simple majority (as opposed to supermajority) is stupid enough for passing a law; for secession it is complete idiocy.

I don’t think secession should be easy, but why not have some sort of legal mechanism anyway? A 75% vote of the state assembly, followed by a 75% popular vote of the eligible voters in that state. Perform this process twice with a mandatory one year waiting period in between each attempt. Something like that should eliminate pretty much any chance for a hot-headed snap decision.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Beerina
The US Constitution does not allow for secession.

It doesn't prevent states from seceding.

55% of the people wanting to secede would be violating the US rights of the other 45%. Those rights should be protected.

You could also say that stopping the secession violates the "rights" of 55% of the people and that those "rights" should be protected. In either event, you aren't talking about rights at all, and this is not a Democracy. Our founders wisely tried to avoid that kind of tyranny.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Random
I don’t think secession should be easy, but why not have some sort of legal mechanism anyway? A 75% vote of the state assembly, followed by a 75% popular vote of the eligible voters in that state. Perform this process twice with a mandatory one year waiting period in between each attempt. Something like that should eliminate pretty much any chance for a hot-headed snap decision.

That's up to each state. A state could easily put such a requirement into its own Constitution. It just isn't a Federal issue.

[Magyar]

OK, so lets just put aside whether it's a good or bad idea.

I personally think that at this time it's an extreemly stupid one -
but depending on how much the ultra-right pushes the patriot act coupled with religious requirments (which IS in fact being discussed to some degree) there is a very real possibility that
secession maybecome a necessary/realistic course to be considered in the next 8-16 years.

REALLY - if you said that the USSR would sease to exist in say 1982, you'de be laughed out of every single political NG as complete nut case! Same with Checkoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

The Jesusland map is a really not that accurate as there wasn't a sinlge state won by either party with overwhelming numbers.
But the reality is that a shamefull number of people in this country voted against something which does not exists
for NO other reason than pure bigotry.

Since the electrion is over and purely as a hypothetical;
A state(s) seceed. What would be your requirements for a new govt;

1) true seperation of church and state.
2) ban all special interest groups.
3) all bills to be single line item
4) no income tax with a single percentage rate on purchases. with no tax on food, cloths and gas/heating/el
5) national standards on education (set by REAL science)
including mandatory math, reading, science, politics, logic, theology and economics

Anyway - back to my original question!
IS there a legal mechanism - given a state has this in their constitution - for state to secceed? Again as far as I know the civil war DID NOT address this a legal matter.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Beerina
In about 10 years, that would correct itself, as the more heavily socialist, European style politicians would have much greater control over the base Constitutional form. Lots of cash and large native industries would keep you wealthy for a few years by sheer momentum, but eventually it would collapse under the new weight of the all-intrusive and all-specifying government.

I'm sure the red states would welcome the shifting of massive factory and business operations into their regions.


And the blue states could run european style trade surpluses using raw materials and semi - finished products supplied by the red states. Who knows they might even reinvigorate the US civil aircraft industry currently wilting as european "socialists" produce superior products.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Magyar
IS there a legal mechanism - given a state has this in their constitution - for state to secceed?No (http://www.slate.com/id/2109317/).

[UserGoogol]

Originally posted by shanek
You could also say that stopping the secession violates the "rights" of 55% of the people and that those "rights" should be protected. In either event, you aren't talking about rights at all, and this is not a Democracy. Our founders wisely tried to avoid that kind of tyranny.

You might be right, but what about property rights? There's an assload of property and debt which is collectively held by the Federal Government. I think it's possible that the leaving of a state would require some of that stuff to be dealt with. (Maybe not, because when an individual leaves the country, they aren't given a bill for the debt of the country and the deed to Guam... Although individuals are different from states.)

[Ed]

Lest any of our foreign friends think that vast swaths of geography are ready to leave, let them look at a county map of the election results. As you can see, the nuts are nicely contained in the vanishingly small number of blue areas.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif

This gets closer to showing what the popular vote looked like and is suggestive of a problem with the water supply in those blue areas, or something.

[AWPrime]

It jsut shows that the people in the blue areas have a higher standard of education.:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by AWPrime
It jsut shows that the people in the blue areas have a higher standard of education.:D

Perhaps. Then again, liberals always have been elitist. In that respect they are not so different from religious fundimentalists who also feel morally superior. In fact, I am not so sure that one could tell them apart.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Uh-uh - you ain't going nowhere.

Now quit your whining, you puling, gutless coward.

Originally posted by BPSCG
Oh. When Random said, I thought he was, well, serious. Didn't notice any smileys or anything to indicate he was kidding. And if you go to Democratic Underground, you see stuff like that there. Shouldn't you be directing your bile towards those groups who do take it seriously, rather than someone who enquires whether they exist?

(Ducks down behind patented bile-shield ...)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Ed
This gets closer to showing what the popular vote looked like and is suggestive of a problem with the water supply in those blue areas, or something. It shows that "blue" voters are able to live in closer proximity to each other than "red" voters. Maybe it has something to do with bellicosity and gun-ownership - in some places you might want to build your house out of rifle-range of the neighbours.

[jj]

Originally posted by BPSCG
If you don't like how this country is being run, you have three choices:

1) Work to change it;
2) Accept it the way it is, or;
3) Leave.

You can take option 3), if you want. But you're not taking part of my country with you.


Your country? YOUR country? You're asserting ownership now?

What's next? You're going to claim you own me?


Now quit your whining, you puling, gutless coward. If you don't like the way things are, persuade me and 49.999999999% of the rest of the country we should do things your way, and quit acting like a spoiled brat who wants to pick up his toys and leave.

Jeezum crow...

Just like the 1960's.

Yeah, yeah, love it or leave it. Didn't somebody say that one already?

[CapelDodger]

The War of Independence was fought by sovereign states, which surely means that the Constitution was and is a Treaty. One aspect of sovereignty is the ability to enter into treaties, and to abrogate them. I don't see in the Constitution any commitment by the members to respond with force to any such abrogation by a treaty-member, so if that were done (as it once was) it would be for other than Constitutional reasons. Sovereign states can, of course, declare war if they wish, which is what the Union states did in the once-was. Amendment 14 was a spoil of agressive war and is morally unsound.

The arguments have already been made during the long days of urban dominance by the very same people who are dominant today. That should confuse them.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by jj
Yeah, yeah, love it or leave it. Didn't somebody say that one already? There were plenty of Brits who said they'd leave the country if Blair won in '97, and they're mostly still here. Despite a lot of prompting.

There's an excellent scene in I, Clavdivs where Caligula, recovered from a seizure, bumps into a senator and says, "I hear you offered your own life to the gods in exchange for mine?"

"I did indeed, your eminence."

"Well, here I am alive, and so are you. That can't be right, can it?"

Never commit, that's what I say. This will all turn out to be whisky-talk. Bunch of liberal pussies.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
You might be right, but what about property rights? There's an assload of property and debt which is collectively held by the Federal Government. I think it's possible that the leaving of a state would require some of that stuff to be dealt with. (Maybe not, because when an individual leaves the country, they aren't given a bill for the debt of the country and the deed to Guam... Although individuals are different from states.) The USSR had the same kind of problems, and sorted it out somehow. It would probably serve the New Blue Confederacy to take a disproportionate amount of debt, since they'll be dumping an ongoing liability and they've got more money in the first place. And they can locate their polluting factories in the South rather than all the way down in Mexico (costs will rapidly converge).

Come to think of it, an NBC-Mexican alliance committed to the recovery of Texas (but not California) would put the screws on ...

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Bunch of liberal pussies.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Didn't someone once say: "If at first you don't secede, try, try again"?

[peptoabysmal]

Now that Bush has been re-elected, I predict a sharp rise in global warming. The rising sea levels should take care of those pesky blue states. :D

[SezMe]

Much of this discussion is based on an erroneous assumption - namely, that a geographic projection of state or county voting is the best way to evaluate the 2004 election results.

Here (http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/election04/election.html) is a really eye-opening site that presents the results in a different mapping format. These results should challenge classic assumptions on both the right and left (R and B).

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed
Perhaps. Then again, liberals always have been elitist. In that respect they are not so different from religious fundimentalists who also feel morally superior. In fact, I am not so sure that one could tell them apart.

Let me get this straight. Education is "elitist"?

I hope that's not what you meant.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj
Let me get this straight. Education is "elitist"?

I hope that's not what you meant.

Of course not. It is a question of style and positioning.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The War of Independence was fought by sovereign states, which surely means that the Constitution was and is a Treaty. One aspect of sovereignty is the ability to enter into treaties, and to abrogate them. I don't see in the Constitution any commitment by the members to respond with force to any such abrogation by a treaty-member, so if that were done (as it once was) it would be for other than Constitutional reasons. Sovereign states can, of course, declare war if they wish, which is what the Union states did in the once-was. Amendment 14 was a spoil of agressive war and is morally unsound.


The Revolution was a revolution: part of a country took up arms against the overall nation it belonged to. The states weren't states, they were provinces of Britain. The United States of America was created out of those provinces after the revolution, by the agreement of those provinces to join together under the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, each new "state" had more independence and reserved more powers to itself. This situation changed when they all ratified the Constitution and willingly gave up some individual state powers in favor of a closer "more perfect union".

It was Lincoln's position that the agreement of the states when they ratified the Constitution could not legally be undone. I'm sure the Civil War buffs in here could delineate his legal reasoning.

My point is that the situation you've described above is a confederation between separate states, which was discarded when the new nation was formed with those states as components. We're not a confederation, we're a single unified whole. Backing out isn't an option--it's more like a Catholic (no divorce) marriage than a business partnership.

[Random]

Originally posted by Ed
Lest any of our foreign friends think that vast swaths of geography are ready to leave, let them look at a county map of the election results. As you can see, the nuts are nicely contained in the vanishingly small number of blue areas.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/elections2004/_images/2004countymap3.gif

This gets closer to showing what the popular vote looked like and is suggestive of a problem with the water supply in those blue areas, or something.

Ah yes, the “surface area vote�. Where a guy in Arizona with ten acres of uninhabitable scrubland has the same political influence as the 300+ people who live in my condo complex.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
No (http://www.slate.com/id/2109317/).

How is there any legal reference, or any proper argument that a skeptic would accept, in that link?

[shanek]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
You might be right, but what about property rights? There's an assload of property and debt which is collectively held by the Federal Government. I think it's possible that the leaving of a state would require some of that stuff to be dealt with.

Well, I would submit that the Constitution gives the Federal government no power to own land inside a state. But even if that were not the case, then all a state would have to do is simply purchase the land from the Federal government.

State debt is not Federal debt.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by jj
Just like the 1960's.

Yeah, yeah, love it or leave it. Didn't somebody say that one already?

Well, there are so many damned slow learners... it bears repeating. What, can't find the Grayhound station? Need a lift? What will it take?

[shanek]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It was Lincoln's position that the agreement of the states when they ratified the Constitution could not legally be undone. I'm sure the Civil War buffs in here could delineate his legal reasoning.

Yes: He wanted to collect the tariffs from the southern states and was desperate to find any excuse to keep them in the union.

My point is that the situation you've described above is a confederation between separate states, which was discarded when the new nation was formed with those states as components. We're not a confederation, we're a single unified whole.

Incorrect. Article IV Section 4 specifically defines us as a republic...and it doesn't give the Federal government ANY authority to stop a state from leaving that republic.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by shanek
Incorrect. Article IV Section 4 specifically defines us as a republic...and it doesn't give the Federal government ANY authority to stop a state from leaving that republic.

And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution says that "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation" which seems to have been violated when the Southern states compacted together. And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, or enter into any agreement or compact with another state, unless actually invaded." Remind me: did the South start forming their own military and arming up before or after the outbreak of warfare? Did they have Congressional permission? No, because they violated Article 6, Section 3: "The states shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this Constitution."

There is no Constitutional provision to abandon the Constitution. The "evidence" you cited is

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Where is in that does it say any State may leave? It's your interpretation of the single word "republic" that you're arguing. Republic: no monarch. Has nothing to do with secession.

I'm beginning to suspect ALL of your arguments, Shane, if your cited Constitutional passages are this loosely interpreted!

[shanek]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution says that "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or Confederation" which seems to have been violated when the Southern states compacted together.

Not true, since they had already seceded from the Union by the time they formed the Confederacy. The Constitution didn't apply to them at that time.

And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, or enter into any agreement or compact with another state, unless actually invaded."

Again, the Constitution didn't apply to them after they seceded.

Oh, and by the way, they were invaded.


Where is in that does it say any State may leave?

The Constitution doesn't have to say a state may leave. Article I Section 10 is a list of things that states aren't allowed to do; if they're not prohibited by that or an amendment, then they can do it. And there's NOTHING in Article I Section 10 or any amendment saying they cannot secede.

Republic: no monarch.

A republic is a collection of sovereign states. It isn't simply "no monarch." Read the Federalist Papers. Read the Constitutional debates.

[TragicMonkey]

Shane, the point I was making was that they couldn't secede. There is no "the Constitution doesn't apply to them anymore" unless you already determine that they seceded; which is a circular argument. "They can leave because they left, so the rules against leaving don't apply."

Again, Article 6, Section 3: "The states shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this Constitution." There isn't "as long as they feel like it" tacked on.

Your personal interpretation of the word "republic" isn't relevant. The Federalist Papers were not ratified by the states and signed into law. The Constitution contains nothing that permits secession.

Just because you, personally, are a strict constructionist who believes that anything not specifically forbidden must be permissable by the states does not make it so. Every time such a situation comes up, it is debatable. And once, we had a war over it. The conclusion was "no secession allowed". You can deconstruct the constitution and quibble over your definition of the word "republic" from here to eternity, but the practical reality is against secession. It wasn't allowed to occur, it isn't permitted Constitutionally, and it will not be permitted in the future.

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply, though, because you have proven yourself absolutely incapable of admitting to any error. And I might add that I found your previous citation of Article 4 Section 4 extremely disingenous: you stated


Incorrect. Article IV Section 4 specifically defines us as a republic...and it doesn't give the Federal government ANY authority to stop a state from leaving that republic.

as if that passage contains anything remotely related to secession. It doesn't. All it has is the word "republic". Which is NOT a "collection of sovereign states". It's a form of government. Italy is a republic. Where are its sovereign states? Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Cuba, Botswana. All of those are republics. Which sovereign and independent nations joined together to form them? The existence of administrative subdivisions does not constitute a confederation.

That's why I said I'm beginning to suspect all of your previous posts. In your unrelenting advocacy of Libertarianism, you cite the Constitution left, right, and center. And yet the Constitution doesn't seem to say what you think it says, and when confronted you argue that it doesn't say the opposite, so it must be a valid interpretation!

[DaChew]

Originally posted by Furious
**** Michigan though. Damn Wolverines always winning that stupid jug.

Oh, don't sell the Gophers short (Golden Gophers...snicker...how could they lose with such a tough name?). After all, they also got schooled by the mighty (snicker) Spartans too.

Thanks for thinking of us but no thanks. We live close enough to Canada to want to have no part it. Don't get me wrong, nice place to visit.

I encourage you to continue with your plan though. Of course, if Michigan doesn't go with you there is virtually no chance the Stanley Cup will ever be seen in Canada again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Shane, the point I was making was that they couldn't secede.

Well, then don't use the "Southern states compacted together" as a baseline for it. They compacted after the act of secession, and since secession is a separate act, you can't use it as an argument against it.

Again, Article 6, Section 3: "The states shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this Constitution." There isn't "as long as they feel like it" tacked on.

Article VI Clause 3 (Article VI does not have sections) does NOT say that. It says the officers of the Federal and state governments shall be bound by oath or affirmation. Don't quote if you ain't quoting. That's dishonest.

Your personal interpretation of the word "republic" isn't relevant.

It's NOT my personal interpretation. It's what the word means, and the meaning of the word used at the Constitutional Convention at the founding of this country.

The Constitution contains nothing that permits secession.

DOESN'T MATTER!!! The Constitution must expressly forbid the states from doing something in order for it to be prohibited. That's made clear in Amendment X. There is NOTHING in the Constitution prohibiting secession; therefore, the states can do it.

Every time such a situation comes up, it is debatable. And once, we had a war over it. The conclusion was "no secession allowed".

The Constitution does not allow for controversies to be settled by Civil War.

it isn't permitted Constitutionally

SUPPORT THIS.

and it will not be permitted in the future.

Well, I'm glad your paranormal psychic powers gave you this amazing insight...

you stated

as if that passage contains anything remotely related to secession.

That's a complete lie. I presented it as a rebuttal to your statement: "We're not a confederation, we're a single unified whole."

It's a form of government.

Yes; a REPUBLICAN form of government. A republic of sovereign states. NOT a single unified whole. Not even the Hamiltonians wanted that.

[TragicMonkey]

I'm going to lunch. I'm leaving it to those with patience to deal with the verbal wrangling, wriggling, distortion, and general insanity. Yeah, you've convinced me, Shane. Libertarian = nut.

[seayakin]

I know I'm stating the obvious but I'm going to do it anyway. The county break down map and the map based on population really continue to show an urban/non-urban divide not an east west divide. Therefore, it is not as simple as blue vs. red states except with states like Rhode Island and Massachusetts which vote more overwhelmingly liberal. However, I'm not sure how concerned everyone would be if Rhode Island seceded. It might be treated like Lichtenstein.

Rhode Islanders could then negotiate huge payments form the US to allow them to keep the Naval War College in Newport. Speaking as someone who lives in Rhode Island, it may not be so bad. ;)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
The Revolution was a revolution: part of a country took up arms against the overall nation it belonged to. By that definition, the Jacobite risings were revolutions, which they weren't. The WoI was a rebellion. The states weren't states, they were provinces of Britain. There are no "provinces" of Britain. The states were part of the British Empire, which effectively meant they were non-British possessions of the monarch. That's what the whole question of representation stems from. Representation by US constituencies on the British model would have made the colonists as British as a guy from Cardiff, which would have been too radical an experiment. But without it they were subject to arbitrary rule, without even - in principle - the protection of Parliament. Which was unacceptable. Result : conflict.

(The Irish did have representation. Result : conflict. Wadyagonnado.)

During the war the states were explicitly regarded as sovereign members of an alliance. Whatever constitutional stages led to the final result, the first stage must have involved an agreement between sovereign states, and must therefore by a Treaty. Since all else depends on that, abrogating that treaty makes further constitutional argument superfluous.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes: He wanted to collect the tariffs from the southern states and was desperate to find any excuse to keep them in the union.
That's not the way I read it. I think it was more about preventing a separate union forming in the West. The proto-Republicans were determined on a nation from coast-to-coast, but that wasn't a universal view. Provoking a conflict with the South to settle the question meant dealing with an "easy" victim. Slight miscalculation there, but they prevailed in the end.

I had to post something contrary, since otherwise I find myself agreeing with your points. :)

[Whyatica]

Originally posted by Magyar


The Jesusland map is a really not that accurate as there wasn't a sinlge state won by either party with overwhelming numbers.


It's not technically a state, but Washington D.C. went to Kerry by some ridiculous amount, like 90% Kerry 9% Bush.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Vorticity
Can California join you? A country separated into two pieces by the land of a second nation is not unheard of historically.
What immediately springs to mind are Germany 1919-39 and Pakistan 1949. Not auspicious, but hey, we may be living under a new paradigm.