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.
Agreed.
The word I used, ‘commonly’ concedes that.
And as I said about California’s secession, that they should take their share of the Federal debt with them. This is part of what Madison said about “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."
I will say that the other states would have no right to impose onerous and unfair conditions of the exit of the seceding state so as to preclude its exit.
While we’re checking definitions let’s take a look at “Dual Sovereignty”: Dual sovereignty is a concept in the American constitutional framework that defines the relationships between the individual states and the federal government. It holds that both the State governments and the federal governments are sovereign with the states subordinate to the federal.
The state governments and the federal government each have spheres and can execute powers that the other cannot. The states are sovereign over most domestic issues—whether a will or contract is valid, what a landlord must do in order to evict a tennant, who is married, how old one must be to drive a car, and what the rules governing corporations are. The federal government is sovereign over issues such as trade between the states or foreign countries, foreign relations, etc.
These powers are few. The powers retained by the states are many.
Unfortunately, the people have forgotten this and the Federal government has usurped a great deal of power not delegated to it by the states.
The states have the power and the right to reclaim those powers.
He wouldn't have to, California is crawling with packers.
Gov’t brute force. When challenged, it comes down to that.
Prayers and support for the people of Catalonia.
It is doubtful the EU would ever agree to let in an independent Catalonia...Spain itself would have veto power over that decision.
Scotland is a bit different since GB is leaving the EU, but any member country struggling with a separatist/independence movement would likely block them.
Your quote demonstrates that states threatened to secede over a tariff. This isn't under debate, what's under debate is whether the Constitution explicitly or implicitly guarantees to the right to secede. It certainly doesn't do so explicitly, and the fact that the first article of the Constitution forbids states the right to engage in diplomacy, wage war, or impose tariffs makes it quite clear implicitly that there are limits to state sovereignty.
What you quote does demonstrate is that not even the Jeffersonian Andrew Jackson (who unlike the Whigs and the Republicans was generally supportive of states' rights) agreed with you that states had the right to secede at will.
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.