Antietam.
This question has been tried and settled in American blood. The answer is no.
Posted on 09/20/2014 9:42:40 AM PDT by Leaning Right
Yeah, but is that not legitimate in a way? It measures overall support for some form of dissolution, which is a valid thing to measure. Unless the people wishing to secede for opposite reasons are in the same state or other subdivision that would secede, thus rendering it pointless, but I think for the most part that’s not the case.
Which....is....a....problem....because.....?
Why? Why not? There gets to be a point in which there is nothing to lose. Open borders, no rule of law, a government that has devolved into a banana-republic run by socialist elites funded by crony capitalism, a populace that has become so spineless that it cowers before every ludicrous PC dictate, and a sick, poisonous culture that promotes nothing but deviancy and homosex.
What is really left of America to want to remain a part of?
The south may rise again. Just wait till I can move there first please.
Antietam.
This question has been tried and settled in American blood. The answer is no.
States can never secede from the U.S.
Clearly no States intended to give up that right when they first joined the union, but the right to secede was taken away by conquest in the War Between the States.
I have a theory that it would be even higher in the Southeast but for the large “minority” population there.
Better move fast, then.
Just a thought.
Now, if only Illinois could secede from Chicago.
Haha! Right, exactly!
As mentioned in related threads, as consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, constitutionally-ignorant patriots are unable to stop the lies being told by both the media and the corrupt federal government about the federal government’s so-called wide powers.
Lone Star Republic
too much reliance on big guvment.
Southwest (34%)
has seen the incompetence of big guvment.
The Constitution only provides for the addition of states to the Union. It does not provide for secession. The Supreme Court ruled, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that the Constitution is therefore a contract - binding on all parties unless ALL parties agree to dissolve it - and just as one party cannot unilateral tear up a contract one state cannot unilaterally secede from the union.
DC has already seceeded. Do we go with them or stay in the Republic?
Some folks argue that the 10th Amendment would allow it: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
But of course no federal bureaucrat or judge would agree.
So the only way to do it democratically would be by a new amendment to the Constitution, one that would allow citizens of a state to vote on the issue.
Good luck getting that one passed.
And it all goes back to this. The US government is strongly for letting folks everywhere else in the world vote on independence. But it ain't happening here. That's ironic, to the point of being hypocritical.
I disagree. Reasonably sure the South would never have contemplated secession in the first place if it weren't for the peculiar presence of large numbers of black people in the South.
Grammatically, you are of course correct. But you are very politically incorrect! "His" is so sexist!
What are you trying to do, get in a fight with NOW?
Getting rid of the evil of the Federal Government gives 'em a better position to fight the evil of their State Government.
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.