Posted on 04/17/2009 10:17:36 AM PDT by RED SOUTH
Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union or bars it from doing so. The constitution does not say anything about states leaving.
The “dividing line” is urban/rural, not state/state. Secession isn’t viable.
I think Texas could become a haven for the conservatives of the U.S., and if allowed to be done peacefully would be a great place to avoid the Obama communist revolution which is being implemented at warp speed.
Will it happen?...No since the other 75% don't mind having socialism force fed down their throat.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
If one state has a right, all the others in the union share that right. Rhode Island and Virginia made provisions for backing out, so any other state can as well.
The electoral college has NOTHING to do with what I’m talking about.
Try to talk like a grown up. You brought up snarky faux-news shows and the need to avoid drawing their ire, not me. You weren't talking about Greg Gutfeld, were you?
And good luck with those elections you're going to take after you win over the middle ground. I'm sure the leftist vote fraud behemoth that just got more than 5 billion dollars in federal funds (for starters) will just stand aside and allow the voters to decide the country's future.
That's sarcasm. You've seen your last free and fair election in this country. If you don't understand that now, you will soon enough.
Are you saying that the Texas border would be less protected from illegals and drug dealers if it were a nation than it is now and do you believe that foreigners would just come in and have Ft. Hood for their own training base?
I agree. We can’t win this country back. We have irreconcileable differences with the left that cannot be worked out. It is time for both sides to realize this and agree to split.
“Texas can become five states but it can’t legally secede.”
Yep. And this is why states like California need to split up :-)!
Quite honestly, and I might get slammed being a “big government supporter”, but I think we can work to solve many of the nations problems by EXPANDING the number of representatives in the house beyond this ridiculous 1 Rep. = 750,000 people nonsense!!!!! Bring it down to 1 Rep. = 100K people OR 30K as spelled out in the constitution.
You can keep the capitol and Senate in Washington, but regionalize the house to save on travel costs. This way, people will hopefully know their representative a bit more and the “madhouse” effect will keep only those dedicated to their job in power. Moreover, corrupting 5K or 10K people won’t be as easy :-)!
Those are just my thoughts though...I am sure those smarter than I can rebuke those sentiments in a heartbeat.
I am not for states seceding though. Despite this bullcrap occurring in our nation at this time, it shouldn’t mean we give up the United States of America as it exists today simply due to some idiots taking charge of the nation right now.
We still have the power....it may not seem like it now, but we do.
I posted very similar comments on the Austin Stateman’s website yesterday. I fully agree with you!
Not unless the Constitution allows for it. As I've said on many occasions, I believe that all states have the right to secede with the consent of the other states. No state has the right to secede unilaterally. Regardless of what their rarification document says.
When was the last time the Republican party was actually the conservative party? That's the problem - it's not just the fact that the party isn't signing on new members. It's that the party has evolved (devolved) into "liberal-lite".
I left them 3 years ago for that very reason.
" When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I wish I could share your optimism. However, it is difficult when confronted by the tripartite cabal of the .gov, liberals and the media.
Take John McCain for instance. NOT a good candidate, but poll numbers had him go ahead of obama - right after he picked Palin. That enthusiasm and that lead evaporated almost instantly as the media, like a pack of hyenas, went to work in a deliberate and furious character assassination of that fine woman. Same with Joe the Plumber. Same with the tea party. Yet we still know jacks^!t about obama.
And forget about the Republicans. They have been spineless in the face of this and are rendering themselves into irrelevance as they alienate their conservative base. Republicans have further demonstrated that they can’t be counted on to be the responsible stewards of our tax money that conservatism and limited government require.
Not saying all is lost, but it certainly appears that way.
The BIG answer, provided by U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1869:
Unilaterally, they cannot, just as states cannot unilaterally enter the union on their own accord. Both acts require the consent of the Union as a whole. Specifically, the final step of whether a state is admitted or withdrawn from the union (or whether it is merged into another state or split into multiple states, or separated from another state) is determined by act of Congress.
The Constitution clearly states that members of the federal government, as well as state legislatures, are bound by oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that they cannot form any confederation with another state without consent of Congress first. States cannot wage war or take up arms against the United States (this clause was provided because the original government, the "articles of the confederation" that the founders created from 1774-1789, allowed states to ignore the federal government ruilings and take up arms against the government, and it proved to be a disaster)
States agreed to these terms (that they were bound by oath to stay loyal to the U.S. Constitution and could not unilaterally create their own rival government) before they agreed to enter the union. States who violate these terms, (like South Carolina attacking U.S. military installations and seizing federal property without consent of Congress) are engaged in armed insurrection against the United States and the rebellion can be put down accordingly.
The United States did not "secede" from the United Kingdom, since the United State was not a state within the U.K. Their are 86 Counties (their equivalent of "state") in the Great Britain, and none of the 13 colonies in North America was one of them. The last time any the 86 counties were engaged in insurrection against the government was the British civil war in the 1600s (the American colonies did NOT participate in that skirmish, but since the anti-royality faction won, we were briefly governed by a new nation, the short lived "Commonwealth of England" from 1649-1660)
OK. How does a state go about seceding? Does the governor say, we want to secede? And then what? Does it not participate in sending federal taxes? Do they cancel elections for Senators and Congressmen? And what if the people of the state do not wish to participate in secession? Do they just move?
I recall that someone once said “The Constitution is not a suicide pact”.
That pretty much sums up my view as to whether or not a state has the right to seceed.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I believe New York was one of the states that reserved all rights of secession, and the Federalists HAD to accept it, because they needed New York.
Why secede? Just exert state sovereignty on a range of issues such as regulations, transportation, trade and taxes.
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.