You really don't understand this at all. I'm not debating the secession issue's legality. For the sake of argument, I'm accepting your assertion that secession is illegal under the Constitution. My argument is what difference would that make if the federal government is no longer abiding by the Constitution, having imported a new constituency for itself from foreign lands who have no regard for that document.
In the case of Tibet and the Colonies, both were examples where the people rebelling had no say in the government that was controlling them.
Increasingly this is going to be the case in places like Europe and the United States. How can any nation escape the EU tyranny? Leftists have adopted a tactic of replacing the populations of their territories with foreigners, and they've criminalized opposition to this. What do the remaining non-Muslims in Europe do when Muslims are the majority? What should a non-Muslim region in Europe do when Sharia is declared?
And in both cases, I believe the rebellions were justified. But just because they were justified doesn't guarantee their success. It'd be nice if it did.
You do know that our rebellion was accompanied by secession, don't you?
Deemed oppressive by who? What standard would you use?
All of these standards are subjective and even personal in individual cases. Was the British Crown the most hideously repressive regime in history? That's doubtful, but our forefathers had had their fill of it and illegally rebelled and seceded from it. If you can't foresee a possibility that some years down the road people might wish to secede from the government in Washington, then I'd suggest you look at what Obama is doing to us.
Only one is.
You wrote that in response to my assertion that it was just as illegal to rebel and overthrow the government as it is to secede from it. So please enlighten us as to why secession is illegal but overthrowing the government isn't.
According to who?
According to whom was the British Crown oppressive? You act as if unanimous consent is required to secede, including consent from the people we're trying to secede from. If that was the standard the Jews would still be in Egypt and the Pharaohs would still be ruling Egypt. Do you seriously wish to contend that we're not losing control of our Constitutional system in this country, when over a hundred cities are sanctuaries for people who have illegally crossed our borders, and when our political class wishes to give these intruders the vote and demonizes anyone who objects?
If you toss out the law and the Constituiton then what do you have left?
Are you really so blind that you can't see what's being done to our nation? Do you truly believe the system that's evolving here is in compliance with the rule of law and constitutional governance as our founders envisioned it?
Then your whole arguement is wrong because I have never once said that secession is illegal under the Constitution.
You do know that our rebellion was accompanied by secession, don't you?
No, I don't. Our rebellion was accompanied by independence once we won.
All of these standards are subjective and even personal in individual cases. Was the British Crown the most hideously repressive regime in history? That's doubtful, but our forefathers had had their fill of it and illegally rebelled and seceded from it.
One thing that cannot be argues is that the colonists did not have any say in their government. They had no representation in Parliament and no voice in their own affairs. The desire for a people to have a say in the government that is controlling their lives is natural, and rebellion in the face of a system that denies them that is certainly justified.
If you can't foresee a possibility that some years down the road people might wish to secede from the government in Washington, then I'd suggest you look at what Obama is doing to us.
Down the road? Heck, there are people here who would rebel today. And if that is their choice then they should do it. That doesn't mean I think their actions are right or that they'll win.
You wrote that in response to my assertion that it was just as illegal to rebel and overthrow the government as it is to secede from it. So please enlighten us as to why secession is illegal but overthrowing the government isn't.
First you would have to point out where I said secession is illegal. I've outlined several times the conditions under which I think it can be achieved.
You act as if unanimous consent is required to secede, including consent from the people we're trying to secede from.
And why not? Don't they have any interests that deserve to be protected? Shouldn't their side of the issue be heard as well? Why do all the Constitutional rights lie with those who are leaving the Constituiton to begin with, and none of those protections are available to those who are staying?