Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Partisan Gunslinger

“Article 4.”

Article 4 says nothing about secession or the dispossesion of Federal property in such an event, so it is just your speculation.

“Not when there is federal property involved. Congress needed the opportunity to prescribe the manner in which that act would be proven.”

Where does the Constitution state this, specifically? Not a clause that you interpret to mean that, but in specific language?

“Could California have done that on Dec 8, 1941? Could California have held a meeting, sent a letter to Congress saying the union is dissolved, seized all ships at the San Diego, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles naval bases, and seized all the buildings at all the naval bases in order raze all buildings and scrap all the ships to show Japan it was neutral so as to not have Japan attack them?”

California would have every right to secede, and by doing so, they would necessarily have to seize any immovable military assets held by foreign governments within their borders. It’s not a matter of “OK” or not, it’s just a fact of life, you can’t ship a fort or military base back to its builder. The question is really, will the original owner decide to try to arrange for compensation through legal, diplomatic, or military channels. The US chose the military channel in the Civil War, it seems to me.


106 posted on 06/10/2012 6:27:35 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies ]


To: Boogieman
Article 4 says nothing about secession or the dispossesion of Federal property in such an event, so it is just your speculation.

Article 4 covers acts of states. Secession is an act of a state.

Where does the Constitution state this, specifically? Not a clause that you interpret to mean that, but in specific language?

Article 4.

California would have every right to secede, and by doing so, they would necessarily have to seize any immovable military assets held by foreign governments within their borders. It’s not a matter of “OK” or not, it’s just a fact of life, you can’t ship a fort or military base back to its builder. The question is really, will the original owner decide to try to arrange for compensation through legal, diplomatic, or military channels. The US chose the military channel in the Civil War, it seems to me.

LOL The judgment capabilities of a reb sympathizer on display for all to see. You would have let California seize our ability to fight WW2. Unbelievable.

Can Jerry Brown and the California legislature seize all naval bases in California and sell them to China today?

109 posted on 06/10/2012 6:36:18 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

To: Boogieman
The US chose the military channel in the Civil War, it seems to me.

It was the South that fired on Sumter.

110 posted on 06/10/2012 6:37:33 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson