Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog
What is the root of the secessionist movement? The driving force at the grass roots level is of course money. Many Americans are rightly disturbed by the transfer of their wealth, and the wealth of their children, to companies that made risky investments, or were poorly managed. This is new territory for the government. The transfer started under George W. Bush with his bank bailout and auto makers bailouts, and the Obama administration has really poured on the spending with additional bailouts and stimulus packages. Citizens of more fiscally conservative states are finding that there money is being redirected from their pockets, and sent to other states.
In years past politicians from both parties have used the guilt factor to increase spending for the "needy". This tempers the backlash from the populace as they realize they are to sacrifice a new boat, or nicer home, for the greater good of society. Today, citizens are being asked to sacrifice their children's education, vacations, and even the home they are in, so that money can be transferred from their wallets to multi-billion dollar corporations.
When we add more government controls and regulations on everything from cigarettes, to fast food and guns, we begin to see the problem. Government is now coming at everyone at some level, over some issue. This piling on is causing those fringe secessionist movements to became mainstream very quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at u4prez.com ...
Nothing to be depressed about, it's always entertaining to watch you post and I generally get a good laugh out of it.
Now, how about an answer to the questions? If you can.
And an 1869 case that said they could not.
That’s some real creative interpretation there, N-S. Those sections don’t say that, and you know it.
.....expel the New England States......
I have used the word purge, but expel conveys the same thought.
You have proposed a legal method for achieving the objective.
That will take forever and requires the expelee’s consent. A better way is to drive them from the congress and simply tell them to be gone, they are no longer welcome, the places the represent are no longer part of the Union.
The force of arms is more effective than the fig leaf of law
Our federal Union: it must be preserved.
- Andrew Jackson toast given at the Jefferson Birthday
celebration in 1830
What they do say is that Congressional approval is needed for a state to be created in the first place, and once allowed to join Congressional approval is needed for any change in their status - combining, splitting, changing their border by a fraction of an inch. It's no stretch to conclude that by implication Congressional approval is needed to leave as well.
Welcome to the 1850’s!
Why? If a state can leave without the consent of the other states then why can't the other states expel a single state without its consent?
A better way is to drive them from the congress and simply tell them to be gone, they are no longer welcome, the places the represent are no longer part of the Union.
And that differs from expelling how?
“People wonder if the governor of Texas also wants to reinstitute slavery, plantations, the fugitive slave law, and the 3/5ths compromise.”
Get a grip man, slavery is not an issue today unless you are talking about those on the government welfare plantation.
How many Confederate Government leaders were convicted of Treason after the war?
Seemed to be what happened in Quebec. It's not like the world stopped spinning.
What, exactly, was resolved? That the North won? I agree with that. The only thing that it "resolved" was the secession wasn't possible in 1861. 2009 is a different story altogether. Not a game changer in the least.
Which, I suspect, would be of little concern to a state that has decided that it is no longer interested in being bound by the US Constitution.
Please read the whole post. My point was those describe the sure-to-come critizisms by the MSM (MatthewsOlbermannCooperMaddowBlitzer) who will use Rule 12 and say:
“Neo-Secessionist apparently want turn back the clock 150 years in their desire to revive the Confereracy. People wonder if the governor of Texas also wants to reinstitute slavery, plantations, the fugitive slave law, and the 3/5ths compromise.”
Taking one phrase out of context is soooooooooo MSM.
Secession is treason. Secession is the same thing as saying the Great American Experiment in Democracy is a failure. Lose an election, have a tantrum and destroy the union. Congratulations Al Queada, you’ve acquired unexpected allies.
None, because Lincoln said they should not be and the American public had no heart for it, but were they traitors? Yes.
Tantrums are just a symptom of a problem.
In the end the true measure of how much conviction someone has for succession or retention is their willingness to put their life on the line for their cause.
From the conditions of Statehood it appears the US government agreed to allow Texas to succeed at anytime.
No, that’s not true.
The Art I section has nothing to say about that and the Art IV section SPECIFIES which situations the Congress is given power to control. Succession is NOT one of the situations enumerated in Art IV.
Your statement, “once allowed to join Congressional approval is needed for any change in their status” is not true. Only the specified situations trigger empowerment.
Amendment X tells Congress that if a power is not delegated to it by the Constitution, it ain’t a Congressional power.
The Supreme Court ruled that their decision was incorrect and their actions illegal.
The issue of whether secession was possible was resolved in 1865.
Actually because the Democrats (Confederates) went about it the wrong way doesn't mean secession isn't possible.
The first step in secession should be a state wide vote on it, quickly followed by a letter of intent to congress and the President with a list of grievances explaining why secession is warranted as well as a possible resolution to prevent secession, with a time period laid out to allow the government to address those grievances.
If Congress and the president fail to act or blows it off as inconsequential and illegal, I'd say that Texas has done it's best to prevent secession and allow secession legally, and then should then take those steps necessary to secure it's borders, the will of the people of Texas having been recorded on the issue, The state having given the Federal government the opportunity to act and prevent secession via legal means, and Texas has unlike in 1861 sought the permission of the Government to exercise it's right to secede under the US constitution.
Of Course as a Natural Born Citizen of Texas, and I have the Birth certificate to prove it, I will be happy to lend my services to defend Texas's bid for secession.
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.