[Vanity] Could repeal of Second Amendment be a breach of contract?

[Jonty30]

If, under a Hilary government, the Second Amendment was read out of the Constitution or Amended to be null and void, could the South leave?

Those who joined the Union did so with the Constitution as it was written at the time, so those were agreed upon terms. However, it seems to me that a repeal of the Second Amendment represents a change to the contract, needing all parties to agree to the change or it becomes a breach and allows parties to decide to stay or not.

Am I wrong?

[Lazamataz]

There are pockets of the south, in the south. I am one.

[Pollster1]

La Raza believes the entire southwest and much of the south is theirs.

Good point. That one could get ugly.

[Ancesthntr]

The North would starve if flyover country was a nuclear wasteland.

Oh, and there are quite a few nukes that don’t need launch codes - good old bombs, that simply need to be armed.

[Pollster1]

Secession, while it would be great for states like Maine, would be devastating for states like Kansas an Utah, states that are landlocked.

Kansas and Utah are landlocked, but the contiguous "Free States" consisting of Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina are most certainly not landlocked.

Colorado and New Mexico, which supported the communist in 2008, would be landlocked if they decided to stay (or if the Free States rejected them for being too liberal), but that is not our problem. We should trade freely with them, so long as it is mutually beneficial trade and not them demanding welfare from productive citizens of the Free States. We might also consider Indiana and North Carolina, which voted for freedom in 2012, and of course Alaska, which is not geographically connected either to the Free States or to the People's Republic of Obama.

An amusing alternative - logically equivalent, but it would drive liberals who care about words crazy, would be the same division of states, but with the Free States claiming to be the United States and expelling the People's Republics from the United States. We would keep our Constitution, with a clarification that the Scalia interpretation is the only valid interpretation. The words of the Constitution mean exactly what they say, and what those words meant when the Constitution was adopted. Thus, a well-regulated militia is all able-bodied citizens, and "regulated" means trained (on their own), while that prefatory clause does not in any way restrict the individual right that shall not be infringed. Similarly, the free exercise of religion takes precedence over any parasite's feelings that might be hurt if free citizens do not want to be treated as slaves compelled to work against their will. And the rest of the Constitution also means what it says, from the Enumerated Powers to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. We would almost certainly repeal the 17th Amendment, but that requires the full legal process, including the approval of 3/4 of the states permitted to remain in the United States.

[bill1952]

The north fight?
With what?
They no longer have any manufacturing worth mentioning and are totally dependent on the refineries in Texas.
Depending on if the state national guard units would turn weapons on their own people.
Imo, the Texas national guard alone could destroy Washington in 4 days.
Washington using nukes would destroy the federal government

[Yo-Yo]

Uh, amending the Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress and ratification by 3/4ths of the states.

Of course it does, but we were speaking of states secession, so I only included the state's portion of amending the Constitution.

If you want to complete the civics lesson, there is also the means of a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3rds of the states.

[Yo-Yo]

But I would like to hear your rational for court first.

My rationale for court first is that secession is the "nuclear option" and should be a last resort, not a first move.

If your goal is to have the south secede from the Union and are looking for any excuse to do so, then yes, by all means you could secede if Hillary unilaterally declared the Second Amendment null and void.

If, however, your goal (as is mine) is to preserve, protect, defend, and expand our God given Second Amendment rights, court would be your first option to have the unconstitutional actions of Hillary overturned, just as the courts overturned Obama's executive order on suspending deportations.

[elcid1970]

Oh...states seceding from the Union. The last attempt resulted in four years of bloody civil war. Don’t know if we really want to go there again.

If one or more of the States wish to thumb their nose at Obama, they should refuse all Muslim migrants, period, by physical means if necessary. Will Obama send in the 82nd Airborne Div to enforce compliance? Don’t think so.

There are indeed two avenues to amending the Constitution. The second was used to repeal Prohibition, since there were several socially dry states that would have voted against ratifying the 21st Amendment.

I’m just trying to damp down a little of the panic I see here on FR, that thinks the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution can be eviscerated by a wave of the hand of either Barack Obama or Dianne Feinstein.

Furthermore, without even going nuclear trying to repeal the 2nd, why haven’t DiFi & Barky even come close to passing laws to create a national gun registry? They can’t go door to door without one.

Don’t forget DiFi has been a fanatical gungrabber since 1978 when her fag friend Harvey Milk was gunned down (given the murderer’s reduced sentence she should have sought to ban Twinkies instead). That’s nearly forty years ago and what does DiFi have to show for her antigun jihad? Press photos of her clutching an AK-47 while calling for its ban, that’s all.

[tbw2]

Obama violated bankruptcy law and business contract law by saying unions get their share of car company assets ahead of secured debt holders, many of them retirees.
And courts let it stand.
In light of that, I don’t think contract law is a basis for challenging violations of the Constitution.

[jeffersondem]

“No, because amending the Constitution requires the approval of 2/3 of the states, and that process was part of the original Constitution those states agreed to.”

Almost right.

Remember, the Second Amendment is not a grant of power to citizens from the federal government. The unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Creator.

The natural right of man to defend himself trumps even the constitution of the United States - and especially the contemplated bastardized version stripped of the second amendment.

If the federal government ever announces it will no longer ensure second amendment rights, people will have to self-ensure.

The problem, as Voltaire noted: it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

[MeganC]

If Hillary simply declares the Second Amendment “null and void”...

If she does this then that will be the time to invoke the Second Amendment and to remove her by force, if needed.

[MeganC]

“The only real question is can a state or region withstand the physical corecion of the central government i.e. the military force?”

The UK just proved that they can.

[Jack Black]

RE: Republic of Maine

1985 was quite a while ago. 31 years. So, while whatever was passed may have been interesting in some way, the fundamental transformation of Maine has continued under the iron fist of FedGov, and has not been resisted by the populace.

Maine is a little more conservative than most of New England, but lets face it New England is the most liberal region in the US. Your two lady senators are the epitome of squishy RINOs for instance.

I'm pretty sure that any Maine citizen who shot an illegal immigrant would receive the full retribution of the law, regardless of what some old law says. Because, like it or not Maine is part of Obama's America and no closer to being an independent state than the Old Confederacy is in 2016.

In fact Maine has had a huge influx of Somali's, one of the most violent, criminal and unassimilable African tribes currently flooding into the USA.

History of Somalis in Maine.

Sad, but there it is.

[Jack Black]

Now, if you want to talk about states evolving into semi-autonomous blocks meaning less federal control and more states rights then that has possibilities. Texas seems to be evolving along this path right now in fact.

NO area or State of the USA is "evolving into a semi-autonomous block meaning less federal control". Do you not notice, for instance, that gay marriage, an abomination to most people in the Bible belt, is now legal in all 50 states?

Anything that the Left really cares about they will shove down the throats of all the states, mercilessly. They will use courts, they will use Federal regulations, the will use immigration, they will use Federal law enforcement, they will use tax laws, they will use legislative coercion, the will use brute force.

Texas has been no more effective in resisting any of this than Rhode Island.

There are no more "states rights" in Texas than in any other state, which is to say, virtually none.

Sorry to pop your bubble but we need to start by fearlessly admitting the truth of our position, which is terrible.

Also, demographics *is* destiny, and as the historic Texas people (which includes Texicans) are displaced or over-run by immigrants both legal and illegal from every imaginable local the overall trend is from Red to Blue.

I certainly whole heartedly agree with your statement that

"The South is no longer your Great Grandpappy’s South. Demographics has shifted too much; industrialization, migration from the north and west, immigration, social media impact, on and on. Window for secession shut several years ago."

Very well put, but there is no silver lining to that dark cloud in Texas or any other block of states, IMHO. Unfortunately.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Don’t worry repeal of the second amendment kick starts CWII.

[gundog]

Wouldn’t a replacement amendment be a pretty big infringement? The 2nd doesn’t allow for compromise.

[Jack Black]

I don’t see any success in secession or civil war. It would be asymmetric and look a lot like terrorism.

Excellent point, and I agree up to a point.

The first question is by far the more interesting one: secession.

Let's all recall our Jr. High history: the states of the Confederacy all voted to secede. Could that happen today? If it could then a second Civil War might well be avoided.

There is no moral issue approaching Slavery to galvanize one group to start killing the other. Events like the Brexit vote (and many others over the year, including multiple votes on French Canadian separatism, votes on Puerto Rican separation, etc.) have changed the way people think about these things.

I have long held that the first state to secede (if any do) will be Hawaii.

Hawaii has the strongest case for secession.

• It was the only State that was a fully formed nation, recognized internationally for decades, prior to annexation by the USA. (Yes, Vermont was a Republic for a couple years between the end of the Revolutionary War and them joining the USA, yes parts of Texas, California and Florida were rump Republics for some short period of time before becoming part of the USA.
• The method by which the USA originally took over Hawaii was not a legitimate and consensual one.
• Hawaii is a majority non-white State, and there is considerable dislike of Whites and the White dominated government in DC.
• There is an active Native Hawaiian political movement that seeks separation and restitution as key planks of their platform.
• Hawaii is over 1000 miles from the continental USA. It's not part of the contiguous 48 states.
• Hawaii was one of the two states admitted very recently.

There are of course lots of reasons why it would not or should not secede, including the fact that a free and fair election was held in 1959 to proceed with statehood.

Imagine our current administration, or one much like it, being confronted with a "Petition for Restoration of Independence". It would push all the libtard buttons! A discriminated minority! INDIANS!! Actual "Colonialism"! Not mention "Imperialism" and "Capitalism" as historic facts. Bitter clinging "Military Industrial Complex" bitterly clinging to their "guns and Naval bases".

It is inconceivable that a Left dominated FedGov would fail to grant such an application. And it's highly likely that even a GOP government would eventually accede to those demands, perhaps after getting a few long term military leases.

I have long thought that this is the most likely, and perhaps only, scenario in which secession is likely to occur.

[Jonty30]

I know Constitutional law trumps contract law, but the principle is there. The states agreed to be part of the Union based on the Constitution that existed. If those conditions get changed or no longer exist, it seems to be a way for a state(s)to decide if they want to be part of the union.

[savedbygrace]

Read the 21st amendment.

[gundog]

There was nothing sacrosanct about the 18th Amendment.