Hi Janet!!1!
Alabama Delaware Iowa Michigan New Hampshire Oklahoma Utah
The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution explicitly made the Union perpetual until and unless the States ratify the secession of a State in exactly the same means by which the State secured accession to the perpetual Union. claims that the Constitution does not forbid unilateral secession are totally false and deceptive.
If anyone thinks that 'filing paperwork' is going to lead to the FedGov agreeing with any secession movement, they are living in a dream world.
Secession is going to take force and bloodshed, in the mildest of circumstances. The FedGov is not going to let go the power it has compiled without a fight. It is going to have to be pried from the FedGov's hand by force.
Now let's see if force is going to follow, when the paperwork is laughed at and used for kindling.
Well, no. The Confederates fought for the right of white men to govern themselves, and to also forcibly govern black men.
It is a real tragedy that the secession movement was tainted by and based on the desire to perpetuate and expand slavery. The idea of secession in and of itself is not inherently wrong.
Zero states will secede from the U.S. This is all wing-nuttery that takes attention and effort away from actually rolling up our sleeves and getting back to work for 2014 & 2016.
Bumper sticker seen in South Carolina
The problem with this notion of secession is that secession by definition means the withdrawing by a geographical section from the Union.
In 1860 this was feasible. In most of the states that later seceded Lincoln did not receive a single vote. The division was almost entirely sectional, except in the border states and a few other areas.
In our present country, the division is primarily ideological. It is sectional simply because one or another ideology predominates in that area. In even the most conservative parts of the country there is a large and active liberal minority that would, understandably, resist secession. In contrast to 1860, the highest vote totals Romney got were in Utah (72%), Wyoming (69%) and Oklahoma (67%). Most of the old CSA states came in with substantially smaller majorities for Romney.
So any seceding state would not only have to fight invading federal forces, it would at the same time have to fight an internal civil war to suppress dissent.
And since the American way for which conservatives would be fighting is based on the idea of the people ruling themselves, crushing dissent by force is pretty much a betrayal of that for which we would fight.
Apparently Mr. Williams is a Freeper. I have posted that sentence about 100 times, along with many others.
Please forward to Glenn Beck.
I don’t see a reason for violence. Texas is probably the best candidate. You’d need a governor and legislature that wanted secession. All they would have to do is declare themselves an independent country and withdraw the credentials of their congress critters unless they wanted one as an ambassador.
You can collect social security if you move to a foreign country. Texas wouldn’t be any different. The feds would have to negotiate with Texas as an equal and not an inferior. If enough contiguous states joined with Texas, they might render DC irrelevant.
Texas contributes far more to the federal budget than it gets returned. With all of the refinery capacity, they’d do fine. Valenzuela might even cut them a break on heavy crude.
I think most of the countries in the world might not be unhappy about a breakup. Of course if enough states reformed to create a nation governed under the Constituion without the commerce clause a much more powerful country could be formed.
The real losers would be the few blue states left out in the cold. They could be readmitted to the new union, but they wouldn’t have the same power. One of the requirements for joining should be a fiscally responsible government operating under a budget with absolutely no deficits allowed.
His only other competition is Thomas Sowell.
Walter Williams has been talking about a national divorce since like 2000.
He sees the writing on the wall, producers and looters can not co-exist together anymore.
I do not think that is important whether federal law permits states to secede from the Union. Surely, British law did not permit the American colonies to unilaterally decide to become independent. It was clearly illegal under British law. Yet, the Patriots relied upon the superior, natural rights of man, citing their God-given rights and declaring that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...” Who would expect the United States government, including its Supreme Court, to declare secession legal? I would presume the very opposite.
He understands the dynamics of the infra-structure of a society, a government; here, a Federation, created by a written compact between sovereign peoples. It was Williams who identified the outrage--while it was still in progress under Clinton & Reno--at Waco. Williams who is willing to expose the socially destructive absurdities of the "Civil Rights" movement, more candidly than any equally prominent White Conservative. (He does not walk on eggs, lest he offend the agitators.)
God Bless this good man, in America's hour of need!
William Flax
Bookmark.
Hi Janet!!1!
Alabama Delaware Iowa Michigan New Hampshire Oklahoma Utah
Ping for later
Obama would support secession because it would result in a weaker USA and he wants a weaker USA more than he wants a united USA.
Conserve America Party File.