Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tdewey10
There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.

I disagree. Since approval of Congress is needed for a state to be admitted or for any change in their status or borders after admission, then by implication there is no reason why a state can't leave with the approval of Congress as well. In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility.

12 posted on 08/27/2007 1:53:47 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
Could they pass one Omnibus Secession Bill? Even if they had a legislative majority and no fear of a Presidential veto, it would be a game of diminishing returns if the states allowed to secede couldn’t vote on the secession of subsequent southern states.
13 posted on 08/27/2007 1:59:05 PM PDT by allmendream (A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur

I propose that Mass. and Vermont be “encouraged” to secede immediatly! Also Oregon, Wshington and Califonia.


17 posted on 08/27/2007 2:03:36 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
then by implication there is no reason why a state can't leave with the approval of Congress as well

Yes because we know Congress will willingly vote to lose part of their tax source...hmmm, what was it the 16th President said was one of the most important issues to him in his First Inaugural Address?

In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility

The man who gave us fiat money to finance internal improvements and was chosen by a worthless man to sit on SCOTUS. Yes let's listen to his opinion...

31 posted on 08/27/2007 2:14:54 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
. . . they had not one shread of constitutional justification for having done so, nor had they any constitutional right to have impeded the Southern states when they chose to withdraw from a Union for which they were paying 83% of all the expenses, while getting precious little back for it, save insults from the North.

Wow! While I realize that most of the government revenue came from tariffs in those day, I had no idea it was so lopsided and would love to see documentation of the same.

I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?

36 posted on 08/27/2007 2:18:08 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Right Of secession: Was a true right. I have always wondered if Pres Lincoln could have launched his unconstitutional war if They hadn’t fired on Fort Sumpter. The confeds fixed this error by referring to the Confederacy as a “perpetual union”in the Confed Constitution.
Remember an issue settled by force of arms is never really settled.
barbra ann
183 posted on 08/28/2007 9:11:16 AM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson