Posted on 11/28/2012 9:42:40 AM PST by Perseverando
For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Since Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitioners for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I am sure Texas would be willing to exchange its ownership interest in all the federal properties outside its borders in exchange for those inside the border of the new republic.
And the Union fought for the right to deny freedoms to white people in confederate states. Wow...denying whites’ freedom to make blacks free.
Smells like hypocrisy to me.
These south haters have a dark side that is UFB. You can bring it out in the light every once and a while, it is ugly to behold.
Walt knows his argument about perpetual is specious. He just has nothing better. So he distracts.
Your point about the tenth amendment is spot on. States retained rights not delegated, and therefore the right to leave is retained by the states. The ninth amendment also supports this view.
Ha, compare the huevos of today’s government to those of 150 years ago. How many hussein lovers would sign up to save the union? Heck, they couldn’t be bothered to get out of Dodge during Katrina or Sandy. They were dumpster diving five minutes after the winds died down and whining the bottled water wasn’t properly chilled. Sure, bring it on!
Not at all. Williams explains secession can be accomplished and how that can happen.
What he doesn't (explicitly) do is say it would be a good idea or recommend it.
The "nuts" are those who are spending a bunch of time and energy in thinking it can or will actually happen and/or advocating for it.
I'm rolling up my sleeves to get real work done. Not engaging in a bunch of counterproductive, sour grapes whining.
But Lincoln is like Mandela ( now committing genocide against whites in Sought Africa) idolized as such a hero; Notice the new Lincoln movie. I’m in Louisiana and we are ready to secede here.
But Lincoln is like Mandela ( now committing genocide against whites in South Africa) idolized as such a hero; Notice the new Lincoln movie. I’m in Louisiana and we are ready to secede here.
Obama would support secession because it would result in a weaker USA and he wants a weaker USA more than he wants a united USA.
The USA would be free to go fully Commie if the South and Mid-West states left. This would be very tempting to DC.
“These south haters have a dark side that is UFB. You can bring it out in the light every once and a while, it is ugly to behold.”
It is not simply that they hate us, although they do. The real issue is the statist is a kind of idolater, and is found throughout history slaughtering people for the Greater Good. The State is supreme over any and all individuals. The same kind of men burnt incense to the goddess Roma, and liquidated “class enemies” and “subhumans” from one continent to another.
They always dress their crimes as patriotism, but at the end of the day it is just window dressing for reavers. Ultimately they are mere tenders for Daniel’s beasts and their progeny.
In the long run it does not end well for them, but they make the streets run with blood whenever and wherever they can.
Your response is the classic error made by all of thee proponents of illegal and treasono us secession. For example you wrote:
The “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States” were in fact a perpetual compact among thirteen states, but that was replaced by the “Constitution of the United States” and never applied to the other 37 (43?) states.
No, the Articles of Confederation were not “replaced by the” Constitution at all. That is the classic mistake. The Preamble of the Constitution says in part, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The Constitution suplemented, superceded, and gave full faith and credit to the Engagements, treaties, and acts of many provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independeence. The authors of the Constitution did not reiterate the “stile” of the United States of America, the Perpetual Union, and many other provisions of the Articles of Confederation because they wrote the Constitution as an extension to the Articles of confederation to “form a more perfect Union” and not as a replacement of the Articles of Confederation to form a different Union.
The Constitution says:
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The ratifications of the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence are among the “Engagements” the Constitution commits to recognizing as the “supreme Law of the Land....”
Anyone who wants to secede their State from the perpetual Union is obligated by the Constitution and its fulfillment of the Engagement with the Articles of Confederation to secure the approval of the seceding State, the consent of Congress, and the ratification by the States of the Perpetual Union. Anything less constitutes the advocacy of subverting the Constitution, its guarnatee of a Republican form of government for every State, and Treason if and when in armed rebellion in alliance with the enemies of the United States of America.
Be pretty interesting to see that happen. I can’t think of anything more appealing to me than the prospect of seeing millions of arrogant liberals starving to death and freezing to death in their new ‘worker’s paradise’. I can just imagine Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer having to go work in a coal mine or a collective farm when their new regime identifies them as politically unreliable.
They will by oil form the open market. You are being a little dramatic.
Just wow!
What an incredible statement. You are an absolute fool!
Your perspective seems rational and fair, but the powers in charge are control freaks that are anything but rational or fair.
Any state seceeding would have to use force to evict the federal forces, and it would mean war.
LOL! I see where your confusion comes from; there is no such thing as the PUSA.
LMAO. What nonsense.
The war was not fought over sllavery. It was fought over economics. The North could care less about slavery.
Conserve America Party File.
A couple of observations...
Most, if not all, of these early documents referred to the united States of America. Small ‘u’. United was a condition, not part of a title. IOW, the colonies were a collection of sovereign States, united for common defense and to ensure that treaties with foreign nations, or, presumably, Indian nations, would include all the states, disallowing any of them from negotiating their own treaties. Surely the condition of unity could be changed by the individual state, or by the rest of that union against an individual state, if that unity was no longer in their best interest.
Perpetual union? Nothing is perpetual. Even the Third Reich was only guaranteed to last a thousand years and that guarantee turned out to be no good. Liberal bulls#it sometimes seems to be perpetual but it will end sooner or later, later if I have anything to say about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.