Posted on 10/04/2017 11:38:58 PM PDT by aquila48
SPAIN has sent two convoys of troops into Catalonia in a move that is likely to anger the regional parliament.
Troops from the Logistic Support Group 41 (AALOG 41) who are based in Aragon were told of their move at about 7pm last night.
The exact number of soldiers is not known but according to the newspaper El Confidencial, two contingents of troops are being sent in 20 trucks.
It is understood their orders are to provide logistical support to the Guardia Civil and national police still stationed in the region.
The appearance of troops is likely to be seen as highly controversial as the President of Catalonia Carles Puigdemont has previously referred to the presence of the Guardia Civil and national police as “occupying forces” and had said they should leave all four of the Catalan provinces immediately.
Former Vice President Alfonso Guerra defends the idea of sending the Army to Catalonia.
The former president and leader of socialist party PSOE Alfonso Guerra has defended the decision to send the Army into Catalonia in case the police were not able to control the situation created by a "pro-fascist" independence movement that is attempting "a coup d’etat".
In an interview with radio station Onda Cero, he recalled that in Paris the Army has been in the streets for a year because of the terrorist threat and that does not make France less of a democratic country.
Alfonso Guerra has supported the message that the King addressed the Spaniards last night because he made an emphasis "where it is needed, in the members of the coup d’etat", with whom he believes it is not possible to negotiate.
The troops are believed to have been stationed at the barracks in Santa Eulalia de Sant Boi de Llobregat, a few miles from Barcelona.
CA’s mouth is writing checks its butt can’t cash. Seems to me Catalonia is more viable as an independent nation, but the Spanish government is clearly going to do everything it can to ensure that never happens.
Yes, but will the Clintons pay a private air force to bomb Catalonia this time around?
a few yahoos with guns will change nothing.
most people want nothing to do with civil wars and simply want to live unmolested.
People always bring up Texas as an alleged example of a state that joined the union with the understanding that it could secede at will. There is no such clause when Texas joined the union. What was agreed to is that Texas could (if it so chose) be further subdivided into multiple states, all of which would automatically be recognized by the Federal Government. How that got to be twisted into the urban legend that Texas can still secede at will is a mystery.
California should be purged from the union.
After the purge, specific counties can apply for readmission based on political and economic suitability
Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution prohibits states from negotiating trade agreements, declaring war, or conducting diplomacy because these are powers granted to the Federal Government. That makes it pretty clear that states are not sovereign nations. If they cannot negotiate their own treaties or trade deals, they certainly don't have the power to leave the union at will. If such a right existed in the US Constitution, there would never have been a US Civil War.
I don’t understand why so many people on this thread support Catalonian independence from Spain. It isn’t a right wing nationalist movement - the leaders of the independence movement are to the left of the Spanish government. They want to be free from Madrid so that they can be even more beholden to Brussels and even more open to immigration from Africa and the Middle East. The agitators in Catalonia aren’t any different from the Pro-EU anti-Brexit leftist advocates of Scottish independence from the UK.
The former president and leader of socialist party PSOE Alfonso Guerra has defended the decision to send the Army into Catalonia in case the police were not able to control the situation created by a "pro-fascist" independence movement that is attempting "a coup d’etat".Thanks aquila48.
Sending in the army? This strategy worked so well for the governor of Massachusetts in April 1775...got those troublemakers to fall in line and do as they were told.
“Secession is illegal. Once States join the US they can’t leave.”
Where exactly in the Constitution is that written?
L
If California tries to leave, I expect Democrats in the other states will try to stop them. Without that state, the Democrats will never elect another president, and they will probably be a perpetual minority in Congress, too.
The question was settled by the Civil War.
Go back to the basic meanings of the words; granted, delegated. Delegated powers can be recovered by the that which delegates. If you hire someone to manage your business you delegate certain powers of your ownership to that manager. If he does a poor job you fire that manager and reassume those powers.
That means that the states have these powers and as part of the compact that is the Constitution the states delegate these powers to the entity that the states created that is the federal government.
The states created the federal government and they can uncreate it or leave it at will. The states would never have joined the union if they thought that they could not leave it if the so desired. They had just fought an eight-yearlong bloody war to escape the tyranny of Great Britain. They were not about to voluntarily enter a new potentially tyrannical union without the knowing that they could exit should it to become despotic.
Again, look to the meaning of words. The word ‘state’ itself means a sovereign political entity. The name ‘United States’ means a group of sovereign states voluntarily joined together to form a confederation of states for their mutual benefit. As a sovereign state they can voluntarily exit that union at their choosing.
The Civil War is no proof of your assertion. Lincoln’s cause for war was the attack on Fort Sumter. Lincoln was negotiating to keep the Confederate States in the Union until that point.
Such a clause was not needed in the Texas Constitution or any other state’s constitution before the Civil War because it was commonly understood that the states could leave the union at will.
Such a clause was not needed in the Texas Constitution or any other state’s constitution before the Civil War because it was commonly understood that the states could leave the union at will.
As proof of this understand amongst the states.
South Carolina Threatens to Secede from the United States
November 24, 1832
At this time there are many national troubles, especially between the government of the United States and the state of South Carolina. President Andrew Jackson's protective tariff has been opposed by South Carolina; and on Nov. 24, 1832, the legislature of South Carolina declares that as of Feb. 1, 1833, Jackson's tariff will no longer apply to that state, and that they will secede if President Jackson tries to enforce the law. On Dec. 10 President Jackson issues a proclamation against South Carolina and threatens to march forty thousand government troops against them.
I say let them go. And we can say as they depart
“May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
“The question was settled by the Civil War.”
Maybe. Maybe not.
L
Where are you getting that "sovereign" idea? Where is that in the Constitution?
States are in a relationship with each other and with the federal government that can't simply be terminated by one party at will.
Not by everybody.
"An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, on nowhere less so than where it is not most contended for." - James Madison, 1832
"My opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw...is a conditional ratification; that it does not make New York a member of the Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal - this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification...The idea of reserving a right to withdraw was started in Richmond, and considered as a conditional ratification which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection." - James Madison, 1788
"But the ability and the motives disclosed in the Essays induce me to say in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison, 1832
Like I said before; go to the meaning of the word (as understood by the signers of the Constitution)
From Meriam-Webster
a :a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially :one that is sovereign
Go to the Declaration of Independence
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The signers of the Constitution had been through a war so that their colonies could become Sovereign States. They did not put a clause in the constitution saying they could leave the union because everyone understood that they were sovereign states and a sovereign state they had the power to negate a treaty. The Constitution is a treaty defining the compact between the states by which they will ”establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,”
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.