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?
Okay, you got me on a technicality. You said unilateral secession was illegal under the Constitution. Regions can secede with permission. But that doesn't change the issue. The concern on this forum is that a federal government operating outside the bounds of its constitutional authority, and dependent on tax dollars squeezed from the people who want to secede, and locked in power by voters who are bought off using those tax dollars, will never allow those people to leave. So what then?
No, I don't. Our rebellion was accompanied by independence once we won.
I guess the British Crown was just imagining things when it laid claim to this territory to begin with. Not to mention that Dixie's rebellion would have been accompanied by independence had they won, so what's the difference? For that matter, if a section of the country secedes in 2032 to escape the leftist presidency of our first lesbian socialist president Irena Gutierrez-Ludwig, the same thing would be true.
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.
So would you support such a rebellion (you seem to have a psychological block against calling it secession, even though that's what it is) if 60% of the population is sponging off the tax dollars of 40%, and the government voted into power by that 60% freely ignores the Constitution, having packed the courts with its cronies. Technically, the 40% still have the vote, but every day thousands more migrants flow across the border, invited by the government, and join the 60%, with the result that the fix is in.
You seem very uncomfortable discussing this, and I understand that. I wish this had all never happened, but this is the direction we set out on in the 1960s. We were assured this wouldn't be the result and were lulled into complacency. Now that it is the result, we're told that it's inevitable and there's nothing we can do about the multicultural, redistributionist, open borders, tolerant-of-the-other regime we have. Likewise, the EU was only going to be a way to ease the mess caused by so many different currencies and trade regulations, and it's ending up obliterating the national cultures of these once proud individual nations.
So what is a non-Muslim pocket of Europe to do when they are outnumbered?
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.
See above.
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.
See above.
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?
Of course, but at some point people simply cannot live under a lawless regime. Our Founding Fathers felt that way. You act as if the trendline in our present day America and in Europe is just fine and dandy. Nothing to see here, folks, just move along. The Constitution is intact, the government isn't growing more intrusive and powerful. It's just your imagination. The EU is all about peace and love and freedom, and so is Obama, so get with the program and stop worrying about taxes and Muslim terrorism and speech codes and open borders. Don't worry, be happy!
I would submit that at some point in the future this land is going to balkanize. If you think our nation will still be intact in the year 2076, our tri-centennial, then I'd like to hear your prediction of what the government ruling our fifty states will look like.