Skip to comments.Should Arizona secede?
Posted on 07/29/2010 6:34:13 PM PDT by SloopJohnB
click here to read article
LOL!!! Good one! Hehe.
I think that is exactly what would happen.
The USC is totally silent on the issue of secession.
The further south and male, the more pro-secession a FReeper seems. The farther North and female the more opposed. T Here are many exceptions. I think this axiom would apply nationally thought.
Yes, true. But, if no one in Arizona will defy the “decision” of a loser judge, what makes anyone think they would stand up to Congress, and secede? Or even more so, to the Blue Army?
A constitution is a foundation which can only be changed by the means proscribed within it. It is not an ordinary law. An amendment allowing withdrawal would be the constitutional means to change the Union. The purpose of the document was to make the UNION stronger, more perfect.
Even the foundation it superceded declared the Union to be “perpetual” hence a “more perfect” Union is no less. All the significant Founders: Washington, Hamilton, Madison etc. declared withdrawal impossible. Not even Jefferson suggested the contrary.
Certainly the means of testing the theory, an insane attack on clearly federal possessions obscured the legal issues and made it much easier to rally behind Lincoln as even some Democrats did.
You want to research this fantasy of yours?
* Patrick Henry * Samuel Adams * George Mason * Richard Henry Lee * Robert Yates (politician) * James Winthrop * James Monroe * Mercy Otis Warren * George Clinton
Ive heard these illegals and their Mexican pro-illegal alien supporters, spray painted, "Burn this racist city to the ground" and painted a toilet on Old Glory as they walked all over our flag....
Both Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams initially were opposed to the Constitution and both changed their minds and became strong supporters.
Technically a “Founder” was only one who attended the Constitutional Convention so only Mason would fit the term I used “...major Founder...”. Yates and Clinton were part of the clique of racketeers who made up the principle opposition to a new government in New York and Yates was in no way a major founder and was sent to the CC to ride herd on Hamilton. He failed miserably. Monroe was just a Jeffersonian puppet and not at the convention in any case.
Most of the opposition came from those who saw the Constitution as a threat to their corrupt schemes in their own states.
Your list does not address the issue either since most of them would have opposed secession even though opposed to the constitution.
The point was addressed SPECIFICALLY during the New York ratification convention. Hamilton was beating down the opposition with a brilliant display of oratorical skills (he was after all the greatest lawyer in the country) and asked Madison (at that time more Hamiltonian than Hamilton) his view of a conditional ratification with the right to withdraw later. Madison, in no uncertain terms, wrote back that this was not acceptable and that once in the Union always in the Union. At which point H proceeded to secure NY’s ratification converting a 2/3s against to a narrow victory. This was one of his greatest achievement in a life filled with incredible achievements.
In the future address what I SAY not what you wished I said. You can adapt your canned and ill-researched responses trying to support the RAT Rebellion of 1861 only with those who know little actual history.
they just believe in secession like central va and his friends.
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.