[Huck]

Had they remained within the Union and demanded the benefits thereof as a member state, I would agree with you. Once they have 'left the fold' then 'national policy' no longer applies

That's an inadmissable leap. States do not withhold the right to abrogate their responsibilities at their convenience, whether or not they continue to demand the "benefits" as a "member" state. They are not mere members of a league. They are parties to a compact. Did all the states not report delegates in the Presidential election of 1860? Last I checked, they all did. States cannot ditch those results when it pleases. It's not allowed under the Constitution. You can't dodge it.

[Gianni]

States do not withhold the right to abrogate their responsibilities at their convenience, whether or not they continue to demand the "benefits" as a "member" state.

Thier responsibilities? Not sure I'm following. I believe it possible to work out an agreement for repayment of a state's portion of the debt, etc, but what continued responsibilities do they have? They are not mere members of a league. They are parties to a compact.

As are we in NATO and certain trade alliances, no doubt. It does not abrogate our right to withdraw if such institutions become abusive in our eyes. An important distinction to make, since a governing body would never admit to such abusiveness.

[stainlessbanner]

They are parties to a compact.

This compact?

"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money."

WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432