ALSO
or if you are NAVY
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 ...
So you're saying that if 50.001% voted against secession then it would be a dead issue?
Nolu Chan hasn't been seen or heard from for a number of years. Playing Glendower and calling him forth from the vasty deep probably isn't going to work.
Nolu Chan hasn't been seen or heard from for a number of years. Playing Glendower and calling him forth from the vasty deep probably isn't going to work.
None, thanks to Johnson's amnesty proclamations and the 14th Amendment. If the question is, how many should have been convicted of treason after the war then the answer is all of them.
Can you point me to the legislation that says that? I've seen it stated many times but never seen anything that supports it. Thanks in advance.
By implication it is.
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.
Joining to begin with, changing borders, splitting up, combining with another state are all listed. Again, it permission is needed to join or change, why shouldn't it be needed to leave?
Amendment X tells Congress that if a power is not delegated to it by the Constitution, it ain’t a Congressional power.
And the Constitution clearly states that the power to admit a state and approve changes in status once it's been allowed to join is a power delegated to Congress.
You are amending the Constitution, partner. That document is worded exactly as it is for good reason, but you are trying to make it say what it doesn’t say.
If it means you you claim, then Texas would have never been allowed into the Union, because its founding document specifically allowed for succession.
“When in the course of human events........”
The Founding Fathers were secessionists.
The Declaration of Independence was treason and was their death warrant, if Britain prevailed.
They fought for eight long years to win their freedom.
Had they lost, the rope was going to be their reward.
Both in 1776 and in 1865, the question was decided by the force of arms. Different military outcomes would have provided much different perspectives of whether secession is allowed or not.
And the Supreme Court does not enter into it. They are not infallible, and they never have been in our history. How many troops does the Chief Justice have?
Rebellion is treason to every established government. Especially if it is unsuccessful. But there is no law that can prevent it. Our country came into being because some men loved the idea of a free America more than their own lives.
And that concept may yet again be required for a free nation to survive.
If it means you you claim, then Texas would have never been allowed into the Union, because its founding document specifically allowed for succession.
Quote please.
The Founding Fathers were rebels.
The Declaration of Independence was treason and was their death warrant, if Britain prevailed.
If Britain had prevailed then their actions would certainly have been punished. They most likely would have died a traitors death, I don't think that anyone believes otherwise. Which is even more evidence of how lenient the treatment that the South receieved for her rebellion was.
And the Supreme Court does not enter into it. They are not infallible, and they never have been in our history. How many troops does the Chief Justice have?
The Court has the force of law and the Constitution. If it has those then it shouldn't need any troops. Not to those who respect either one.
I’m saying that your example happened in Quebec, without, apparently, significant damage to the fabric of the province. It’s been nearly 15 years since the vote, and Quebec is still chugging along as part of Canada.
I suspect that is because most of the Quebecois secessionists have moved to south Florida and have been a plaque on our beaches ever since.
NS you can call them rebels or secessionists. Both are true and both are accurate. They seceeded from the British Empire and knew they were doing so.
As far as the treatment of the South from the North, I don’t agree with you. Lincoln, and Johnson and Grant understood that without a quick healing, there would have been a guerilla war in the South for years.
And quite frankly, the destruction that the North visited upon civilian centers and private property in the South that was not miitarily engaged in the Rebellion was criminal. So the South suffered quite enough to be “punished”. The South did not rise again for almost one hundred years.
The Court and its decisions have no force except in the willingness of men to respects its decisions. You are correct on that point.
But failing that, they can enforce nothing, nor can they prevents the bonds that connect people from being severed.
The people in Washington DC who form our government do not have unlimited license to rule us just by virtue of being elected or appointed legally.
In history there is many a time when the existing authority is challenged over the right to govern.
The outcome is predicated on the level of the determination of either side to prevail in the struggle, and the amount of resources committed to victory.
The victory of the colonists was never a foregone conclusion. That makes their struggle and victory all the more remarkable. In my opinion, it was providential.
"Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States."
"Subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." If the Constitution does not allow Texas to withdraw unilaterally then legally she cannot do so, even if the Texas Constitution specifically said she could. Which, I will point out, it does not.
Blue states are threat to our security.
Not really, no. Secession is defined as "to withdraw formally from membership in an organization, association, or alliance." The implication is that the act is legal. Under circumstances where the action is illegal, then it is most properly defined as rebellion or revolution.
As far as the treatment of the South from the North, I don’t agree with you. Lincoln, and Johnson and Grant understood that without a quick healing, there would have been a guerilla war in the South for years.
I would ask you to point to a single major rebellion in history where the people suffered less and were incorporated back into the body politic faster than the Southern states were.
And quite frankly, the destruction that the North visited upon civilian centers and private property in the South that was not miitarily engaged in the Rebellion was criminal. So the South suffered quite enough to be “punished”. The South did not rise again for almost one hundred years.
About the same time that the South was engaged in her rebellion, a rebellion in China was finishing that had cost over 50 million lives and which had devestated whole sections of the country. Please do not tell us how the poor South suffered for her actions.
The people in Washington DC who form our government do not have unlimited license to rule us just by virtue of being elected or appointed legally.
Nor do the states.
In history there is many a time when the existing authority is challenged over the right to govern.
But seldom for less reason than the Southern U.S.
We disagree about what powers Art IV Sec 3 conveys. Every clause in Sec 3 concerns the FORMATION and/or admission of States. Not a single clause concerns the secession of States.
I challenge you: Quoting the actual words of Art IV Sec 3, what clause or clauses provide the source or sources of the implication you claim exists to convey a prohibition against secession? To meet this challenge, you are not allowed to rephrase the actual wording of Sec 3 when quoting.
If there is an implication, the implication has to be sourced in the actual wording of the section.
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.