Skip to comments.
(Vanity) Why is there no set process for a state to leave the union?
GraceG
Posted on 05/13/2016 1:18:26 PM PDT by GraceG
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-177 next last
To: Arthur McGowan
In reference to my comment in post 51, I apologize for it. It has bothered me since I posted it this afternoon. I should have stuck to the issues on this thread and not take a cheap shot by bringing up our other disagreements.
101
posted on
05/13/2016 8:27:04 PM PDT
by
CommerceComet
(Hillary: A unique blend of incompetence and corruption.)
To: henkster
Its a hard argument that dissolving the Union is consistent with upholding the Constitution that establishes it.Not at all. Every entity that files Articles of Incorporation establishing the LLC/LP/whatever, must also include details on how the entity will be dissolved.
102
posted on
05/13/2016 8:29:40 PM PDT
by
Teacher317
(We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
To: NaturalScience
The claim was made that ...the very articles by which their legislature approved entering the union contained language reserving the right to leave the Union. Apparently, they didn't.
To: NaturalScience
Thank you for your kind reply.
104
posted on
05/14/2016 1:17:37 AM PDT
by
Hulka
To: Teacher317
Every entity that files Articles of Incorporation establishing the LLC/LP/whatever, must also include details on how the entity will be dissolved. Excellent point; thank you for making my argument. The fact that the Constitutuion DOESN'T have that provision is proof it was intended to be an indissoluable union.
105
posted on
05/14/2016 5:01:37 AM PDT
by
henkster
(DonÂ’t listen to what people say, watch what they do.)
To: GraceG
You just start by firing on Fort Sumter.
106
posted on
05/14/2016 5:13:41 AM PDT
by
HereInTheHeartland
(I don't want better government; I want much less of it.)
To: patriot08
That’s a depressing list of outright waste and squandering of taxpayer dollars on a massive scale. Every present and future Social Security recipient should read it.
Unfortunately this kind of reckless and self destructive foreign spending has been going on for a long time under multiple administrations. Of course its far worse under Obama but other presidents paved the path for this senseless largesse. The really aggravating thing is that it comes at the expense of needed assistance to American citizens and other critical domestic needs. Not to mention the fact that it helps our enemies abroad.
This is why we need to boot out the GOPe “leadership” in the House and Senate. Needless to say, the spending will only get worse under a Democrat so electing a businessman as president at least gives us a small chance of righting the ship.
To: GraceG
We have discussed this subject ad nauseum on Free Republic. Basically secession of a state is not unconstitutional because the US Constitution is silent on the subject. There has been agreement among many historians had the founders put a secession clause in the Constitution then it would not have been ratified. Conversely a roach motel clause ( states and join but they can never leave ) would have been a show stopper too.
108
posted on
05/14/2016 6:29:00 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Cincinnatus
Session does not mean war. The pussies that run the Federal Government wouldn’t do a thing to stop a state from leaving. No political will and the standing Army is to small anyway.
109
posted on
05/14/2016 6:33:10 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Bull Snipe
That’s an interesting thought. But given that our court system seems to operate at glacial speeds, how long do you think that process would have taken?
I suppose an argument could be made that this would have bought time for the North to use its industrial might to better prepare for war against the South.
I think the North harbored increasing resentment for the growing wealth of the South and its lucrative cotton exporting business. Maybe even felt some fear over its growing independence. Perhaps not the main cause of the war, but a motivating factor nonetheless. It was inevitable that the North wasn’t going to let go.
To: Nifster
Because we are a union. To leave breaks the unionRidiculous thinking .
111
posted on
05/14/2016 6:35:49 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: toast
After the federal government goes bankrupt the US will split into about 6 different countries.A good thing.
112
posted on
05/14/2016 6:36:36 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Arthur McGowan
The only issue resolved by the Civil War was: Can the North crush the South by burning, razing, and murdering? The answer was Yes.Very well stated.
113
posted on
05/14/2016 6:37:37 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Nifster
The south did not just leave they then attacked the union fort which was a federal facility and declared themselves to be at with and in rebellion to the USThe SC militia attacked that fort. 6 others states were in the Confederacy at the time but did not participate directly in the bombardment.
114
posted on
05/14/2016 6:39:52 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Starboard
115
posted on
05/14/2016 6:41:42 AM PDT
by
patriot08
(5th generation Texan (girl type) ANGRY? REFUSE TO VOTE? HELLO HILLARY!)
To: central_va
After the federal government goes bankrupt the US will split into about 6 different countries.
We have a very recent model in the demise of the Soviet Union. All the power went to the satellite states. They did form alliances, but not new countries.
116
posted on
05/14/2016 6:41:54 AM PDT
by
PeterPrinciple
(Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
To: GraceG
Precisely, had each southern state legislature held a sate vote to leave the union with at least 2/3 vote saying to leave, and then had state referendum(s) with 3/4 or more of the populace wanting to leave as well, they would have had a hell of a lot higher moral high ground to leave and then did nothing to antagonize the north then things would have turned out a hell of a lot differently.Every Southern state had a referendum on secession. Many had a direct referendum vote. Others had a delegate selected referendum. The people of the South chose secession.
117
posted on
05/14/2016 6:45:40 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: Arthur McGowan
‘The only issue resolved by the Civil War was: Can the North crush the South by burning, razing, and murdering? The answer was Yes.’
_____________________________
Agree. Excellent reply
118
posted on
05/14/2016 6:47:17 AM PDT
by
patriot08
(5th generation Texan (girl type) ANGRY? REFUSE TO VOTE? HELLO HILLARY!)
To: broken_arrow1
hich equals civil war against a bunch of pussies, dykes and tranniesNow that is funny. Those LGBTs would be more than happy to see Texas secede.
119
posted on
05/14/2016 6:48:04 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: rockrr
Ok once again you reduce the Civil War down to a fight over a pile of rocks in the Cooper River. Bravo.
120
posted on
05/14/2016 6:49:18 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 161-177 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson