Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
;>)
I believe you are entirely correct here! That opened the door wide and the stateists continue to walk through it to this very day!
“BTW one thing I am sure of is Louisiana can NEVER secede. The land was owned by the united states of America before it was a state....”
LMAO!!! I wouldn’t count too much on that one to stop it. Outside of the N.O. area, the sentiment in the rest of this state is pretty angry. If Texas goes, don’t be surprised to see a huge push by the citizens of it’s sister neighbor to do as well. People in these parts are mad as h—l with odongo and what’s going on at the federal level in D.C. right now. All I want is to know is when it starts; because I know a few specific libs not too far away from here that are gonna get a good old fashioned Texas-style ass-whuppin’ once it starts....and I don’t wanna miss it!!
Yes indeed! Unfortunately a "highly revered" statesman in our history did not see it that way and a great number of good men died because of it!
Why would men who had suffered greatly in order to free themselves from an oppressive government turn right around and give their newly formed government the right to decide whether or not its own actions were constitutional?
The answer for any right thinking person is that they certainly would not do any such thing and they didn't!
Amen to that...
Do you mean Lincoln? He was wrong. One of the worst men to ever hold office. A statist and totalitarian. He corrupted our understanding for generations to come and he is STILL causing problems.
Duly noted.
How would you describe it?
How did you conclude that?
Unalienable: Incapable of being alienated, that is sold and transferred. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523.
You cannot surrender, sell or transfer unalieanble rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W. 2d 97,101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalieanble rights.
That's incorrect. The act in question, shown here, is titled "An Act to Admit the State of Texas to Representation in the Congress of the United States". It says nothing about admitting Texas, indeed it refers to it as the State of Texas in the document. It is not an enabling act admitting an actual state. Such an act was not necessary because neither Texas nor any other rebellious state had never ceased to be a state. As Chief Justice Chase noted in the Texas v White decision.
Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.
So were California and Vermont. But their admission to the Union did not grant them privileges not allowed other states. All states have the same rights and the same restrictions as every other state. Even the original 13.
Some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal. Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually "proved" is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group.
It was not the outcome of the rebellion that decided the question of secession but the Supreme Court in the Texas v. White decision. And the court did not say secession was illegal, only secession without the consent of the other states.
Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.
No, it will depend on law. Specifically the Constitution.
One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the 'readmission' of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court's decision in Texas vs. White...it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.
Can you please point me to the post-rebellion act of Congress that specifically states that it was admitting Texas, or any other Southern state, to the Union? In every case, it was returning their delegates to Congress. Again, no such readmission was necessary because none of the states were ever out of the Union.
Because of this, if state's rights proponents continue to argue that a state's right to secede is implied because they joined the union as 'independent states', a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution.
With the exception of the original 13, no state 'joined' the Union. They were admitted with the consent of the other states.
“No, we cannot secede. The Supreme Court ruled on it and said it was unconstitutional.
Do you have a case number for this finding? “
What? The hell if I’m going to ask for permission to secede, from the oppressors. It’s like asking Japan if it’s ok to declare war on them the day after Pearl Harbor.
Isn’t there some sort of provision with Texas that would allow it to break into 5 States within the Union?
States don’t have rights.
Only People have rights.
States have powers.
"They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the other states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. Why shouldn't leaving require the same?"
358 posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:34:15 PM by Non-Sequitur
Rules regarding admission do not necessarily imply similar (if any) rules regarding departure. If you were right, anyone who entered the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes would need some kind of official permission to disassociate themselves with said program.
In other words, you're wrong - as usual...
;>)
"But can a state be turned out of the Union against their will if the other states choose to end their assocaiation [sic] with them?"
Do you understand your own words - or not?
;>)
Yet Kansas has given us someone who taught us how to sneeze into our sleeves...I just don’t know how we could have survived without that demonstrated to us in that way...
What’s next??? Someone to teach us how to use toilet paper???
But I will say in defense, that Perry will certainly NOT be a good candidate for the big chair up in D.C.
I doubt 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.