To: wagglebee
As I've stated already, I believe that the right to secession DOES EXIST, but it needs to be addressed properly and I don't believe that any of the declarations of secession did. Unless you and I live in a state or states voting on secession, what you or I think means jack squat - nothing.
110 posted on
05/31/2011 3:10:22 PM PDT by
central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: central_va
Texas v. White ruled that as practiced by the pretended confederates, secession did not happen.
It could, by ratified treaty, by statute, or by successful federal court case, or by successful rebellion. None of those happened in the 1860s. I don’t think that unilateral secession would be legal, and certainly wasn’t justified by slavery.
115 posted on
06/01/2011 11:48:32 PM PDT by
donmeaker
("To every simple question, there is a neat, simple answer, that is dead wrong." Mark Twain)
To: central_va
It is very interesting that even NS couldn't name a non-RINO legislator from the northeast. I am kind wondering whether if that also applies here at FR.
Dixie bashing and Free Republic just doesn't mix.
123 posted on
06/03/2011 3:51:36 AM PDT by
catfish1957
(Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
To: central_va
Actually, it does, since we all live in a country where several states improperly attempted secession, for which the country paid heavily.
Secession would be legal, if accomplished by constitutional amendment, by successful federal court case, or perhaps even by successful federal legislation. It is not legal when attempted by state temper tantrum.
138 posted on
06/11/2011 7:40:55 AM PDT by
donmeaker
("To every simple question, there is a neat, simple answer, that is dead wrong." Mark Twain)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson