Posted on 05/13/2016 1:18:26 PM PDT by GraceG
I have been reading about the periodical votes the Texas legislature makes about secession and pondered on it a while and thought a bit about it and came up with a few things.
1. We have a set of procedures for adding a state to the union in the Constitution.
2. We don't have any set of procedures if a majority of a state's population want to no longer be part of a union.
3. If the formation of the country was the voluntary gathering of states to form the union in the first place, then wouldn't forcing a state to stay against the majority of it's inhabitant's will essentially by tyranny?
4. If you added a process for a state to leave you would by default make that process be somewhat harder than if a territory wanted to become a state. Say for instance Saskatchewan was able to leave Canada peacefully, but then after a while wanted to become a state of the United States, if they wanted to leave later you would want an ever greater majority to on the vote to leave than the vote to join.
5. The civil was was caused by the illegal actions and military actions of the southern states ganging up, forming their own country illegally and then attacking the north. (though there is still some debate who fired first). If there had been a legal process and procedure for states to leave and then later form the confederacy, would the civil war had been averted if they had in that case "stuck to procedure" ?
6. Does a government body that has a process for admittance of smaller entities, but doesn't have any process for them leaving. Does that make that government a Tyranny by default? Does this make the United States a Tyranny by definition? What about the European Union? What about NATO, or the UN even?
Just some pondering about the very nature of "Unions" in the Nation-State sense.
If I remember correctly, there is a legal way for the states to leave the union (other than those which have it written into their admissions). Basically, it’s that since the union was formed by agreement among the states, in order for a state to leave the union it must likewise have the agreement of the other states. In other words, secession is a contractual action requiring the other contractors to okay it. Since this is unlikely to ever occur (except, perhaps, in the case of California), we will never see it happen.
Arthur McGowan and patriot08 didn’t said anything incorrect — why the attacks instead of facts and counterpoints? (That’s rhetorical, I’m pretty sure I already know the answer).
How does the saying go? Oh yeah, “in a time of universal deceit...”
I hate to shatter any illusion you have of Lincoln’s integrity, but Lincoln was ABSOLUTELY a tyrant and he got what was coming to him. Lincoln destroyed the 10th Amendment and set the precedent that the National (no longer Federal) Government can just ignore the Constitution. He implemented door-to-door seizures of weapons and, whether you agree with it or not, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in the form of an “Executive Order” (just like something Obama would do).
He also closed newspapers, imprisoned journalists who disagreed with him, and threw opposition mayors, congressmen a city councilman and a circuit court Chief Justice in prison. THESE ARE THINGS THAT EVEN OBAMA HASN’T DARED TO DO (yet).
Sic semper tyrannis!
(Oh, and Henkster, I think you mean Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1)
Of course it had the right to wage war to protect itself.
Your linking the decline of the US to Roe v Wade is silly. If you are that concerned about persons not being allowed to be treated like persons then you should have link to March of 1857
Really? Apparently you need reading comprehension
Did you get your arguments from the Kennedy brothers ?
No. That is not what that means. It means that those states were in rebellion and had to come out of the state of rebellion to be allowed the status of state rather than occupied territory
What utter nonsense. Did you study history under the Kennedy brothers?
When the South briefly invaded the North they did so honorably paying, even in basically worthless money, for what they took.
I have ancestors that were on both sides. However after researching and reading the daily correspondence of officers from both sides of Sherman’s March it is pretty clear what occurred. The two items most covered up in history texts were the considerable number,of rapes of Southern women by Union soldiers and the over 3,000 for women slaves who followed the army providing sexual favors to the troops. Most of the officers thought this was an abominable practice but Sherman himself ordered no action to be taken to stop the practice.
Considering what Sherman later visited on the native Americans and it is clear he was a subhuman being who had little respect for his adversaries.
Ah ok. Some folks aren’t country slow they are just stupid
The Lost Csusers tjink if they say it often enough to it is true.
Read some history from the time rather than the Kennedy boys who aren’t historians to begin with
Read some history from the time rather than the Kennedy boys who aren’t historians to begin with"
Let's pretend that your first sentence didn't happen, and you're sober enough to debate. What did I say that wasn't true?
Oh no, I meant Article VI, Sec. 3 Clause 1. It’s the Oaths clause. Every public official down to dog catcher is required to take the oath to uphold the Constitution. That means no state officer can take an act to have their state quit the Union without violating the oath. Therefore no state can legally seceed because there is no lawful authority to do so.
www.google.com
It's in the Texas Constitution (both the original and the current).
Article 1, Section 2: "...The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."
If that's not good enough, there's similar verbiage in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, minus the "inalienable right" part. The fact that the Texas Constitution refers to it as an "inalienable right", means NO ONE can take it away, not even the U.S. Government under the guise of "unconstitutionality."
Of course, none of that trumps the authority of an all-powerful "Federal" Judge. /s
That’s nonsense. The oaths are to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not “the Union,” or to some specific list of member states.
The notion that a states’ joining the Union is an absolutely irrevocable, registered-in-Heaven, utterly unbreakable covenant, flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence.
The States and the people retain all powers that they DON’T specifically delegate to the federal government. Therefore, since secession is not mentioned in the Constitution, the states and the people RETAIN the natural right of secession.
Every state that legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade should have been expelled from the Union. California should have been expelled in 1967, New York in 1970, etc. All the states should have seceded in 1973.
So, if California wanted to leave upon the election of Trump, the United States absolutely should not wage a war to stop them!
I guess that makes your stance a little clearer, but I still disagree. (First of all, Article VI only has one section but it does have 3 paragraphs).
Anyway, regarding your perspective, I don't think the Constitution says anything about States leaving the Union. That means that a State official could support secession without violating his/her oath (in my opinion).
It’s a hard argument that dissolving the Union is consistent with upholding the Constitution that establishes it.
They loved it so they had to kill it....
So, like Islam, you’re free to join but never free to leave... In the Land of the Free...
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.