[Non-Sequitur]

The USC is silent on the matter, EVEN after the reconstruction amendments were passed, THIS ISSUE IS STILL UNRESOLVED UFB....Yankees can't even win correctly.

If it is silent, then it must be permitted; isn't that the whole argument behind unilateral secession and the 10th Amendment? As you all are fond of telling me secession without the consent of the states is not forbidden, therefore it must be permitted. So since expulsion without the consent of a state is not forbidden then it must be permitted as well. Right?

[central_va]

Does the USC discuss currency? Can states issue their own currency? If the USC were silent on that issue then that (issuing a state currency) is permitted? What about state bank? Is that permitted? The USC is silent in may areas.

[central_va]

During WWII it was assumed that POW’s were going to try to escape. THe camp Komandant didn’t come out tell the POW’s you can try to escape if you want. The POW escape “clause” is implied. In like vein a state can “escape” the USA. It may start a war (because Yankees are warlike) but the “right” to escape is implied.

[central_va]

Art. 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

So if a state coins there own money then defacto it is not a following the USC? The IOU's given out by CA, is that not a form of currency? It seems that even the most simple things in the USC are bent in ways unimaginable. I guess an implied right (secession) is nothing then if not more honest.