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.
It’s something like the Hotel California . . . you can check in but you can’t check out.
I think Lincoln settled that one. It’s like Hotel California. Once in, you can never leave.
These issues were pretty much resolved in 1865.. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution is not a compact of the states, but a compact of the people of the United States. Your arguments were debated for a long time and finally settled by a horrific war. Reason suggests not repeating same.
That’s what the Civil War was about.
All states have always had the right to secede from the Union. Many states, such as Texas, retained that right explicitly in the very articles by which their legislature approved entering the Union.
The Declaration of Independence declares the natural right of people to secede from any political unit of which they have been a part. The existence of that natural right is among the “self-evident truths” listed in the Declaration.
Lincoln WAS a tyrant and a mass murderer. He made war against states for exercising a natural right declared in the Declaration. Thus, Lincoln nullified the Declaration.
The “Union,” ever since its victory over the Confederacy, has been a tyrannical empire, claiming many absurd prerogatives—such as the claim that it is “indivisible.”
The people living in it have enjoyed many personal freedoms, but those freedoms are not based on the rights of the people. Rather, those freedoms have been tolerated by the tyrants running the country while they went about the slow business of turning the country into an overt tyranny.
The issue was not resolved by the Civil War.
The only issue resolved by the Civil War was: Can the North crush the South by burning, razing, and murdering?
The answer was Yes.
Try to get rid of your cable provider.
If a Constitutional Amendment was necessary in 1919 to give Congress the power to regulate or ban ONE CHEMICAL, why has NO amendment been necessary to give Congress the power to regulate or ban thousands of other chemicals?
Texas could have a case. They actually joined the union as a sovereign nation....a merger with terms and conditions that could be voided...
[ I think Lincoln settled that one. It’s like Hotel California. Once in, you can never leave. ]
Well yes, but the south did leave illegally, even if there was no set process to leave in the first place.
I am thinking there should be a set process for a state to leave and if was reasonable and took more effort to leave than to join, and was spelled out HOW to do it, it could be added as an amendment to codify the process.
Say you have to have a state referendum of at least 75% of the state’s population who vote to leave, followed by 2/3 of the state legislature and signed off by the governor, then a say for instance 8 year process of de-state-ifying begins where federal assets are repatriated back to the state and state residents are given the choice to retain us citizenship and move to another state in the union, while people from other states may move into the new country without a visa and apply for new country citizen ship, etc....
Military assets and bases are transitioned to the state national guard and people in the US military who are residents of that state are given the choice to stay in the US arm they will have to move to another state or they can stay in the state that is leaving and be moved into that state’s national guard.
You would have a process of slowly handing over National parks to the state government as well as other “federal” assets etc...
But having a set process would allow a state to leave without needing any bloodshed because people voting to leave would know the process.
Because we are a union. To leave breaks the union
Then perhaps it is time for you to live somewhere else
Nice revisionism but oh so wrong
[ These issues were pretty much resolved in 1865.. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the US Constitution is not a compact of the states, but a compact of the people of the United States. Your arguments were debated for a long time and finally settled by a horrific war. Reason suggests not repeating same. ]
But isn’t Holding hostage a state with say 90% of the population wanting to leave the union essentially illegal if not violating the principle of self governance?
Read Article VI, especially Section 3, Clause 1.
Because they had been at war and had to show they were no longer at war but were peacefully part of the union
After the federal government goes bankrupt the US will split into about 6 different countries.
[ If a Constitutional Amendment was necessary in 1919 to give Congress the power to regulate or ban ONE CHEMICAL, why has NO amendment been necessary to give Congress the power to regulate or ban thousands of other chemicals? ]
Because the progressives just invented the FDA out of thin air and later the DEA to trample the hell all over the idea of federalism....
Where did you learn your history. It is not only far fetched but illogical as well
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.