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

Skip to comments.

The BIG question lately - CAN STATES SECEDE?
discussion

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cwii; statesrights; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-421 last
To: JaneNC
Texas is the only state that can secede.

And Montana.

401 posted on 04/20/2009 5:01:13 PM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: macebowman
At least half a dozen of our current “multi-national conglomerates” got their start with military contracts for tainted food and uniforms that melted in the rain.

Care to name them?

402 posted on 04/20/2009 5:06:18 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Based on the last election I'd say they aren't.

I would say you are stone dead wrong.

403 posted on 04/20/2009 5:06:20 PM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I argued that ALL contracts are freely entered into, but they are still binding until a remedy is exercised within that contract.

A broken contract is null and void. There is no reason to seek remedy within it's boundaries. It may be wise, but it is not necessary.

404 posted on 04/20/2009 5:12:33 PM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
A broken contract is null and void.

What if I say it hasn't been broken? What then?

405 posted on 04/20/2009 5:53:57 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: FTL

I think you are trying to convince yourself.


406 posted on 04/20/2009 6:28:57 PM PDT by Ben Mugged ("You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH
Yes, the states or state can secede. In the 1860’s a bunch of states seceded from the Union. They were later forced at gun point to “rejoin” the Union, but they did in fact secede. The real question is whether or not the tyrants in Washington will declare war on their own people. If those in the armed forces will refuse to kill, wound, and destroy their fellow countrymen, there is a real chance that the secession will succeed. Obama may hesitate to fight our enemies abroad, but he will have no such qualms when it comes to killing Americans desiring liberty.
407 posted on 04/20/2009 6:39:25 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

Secessionist talk scares Liberals and makes their heads explode. They simply can’t bear the thought of losing one dime in revenue that they steal out of all of our wallets on a regular basis.

At present its is simply an academic exercise in discussion since there is no indication any state is ready to invoke its sovereign rights - yet... I do not see US armed forces shelling or bombing Americans in US cities these days. After all, how would that “look to the world”? And how we “look” and are “accepted” by others seems to be their primary motive. To whit, panties on the heads of Islamofascists is considered cruel by the Libtard Left.

Some use the “Waco” analogy. A state such as Texas invoking its right to succeed is not the legal equivalent of a “Waco” situation so Waco is not an accurate analogy or comparison and a completely different situation. The argument would be made that the succession was legal and a right.


408 posted on 04/20/2009 7:14:57 PM PDT by FTL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What if I say it hasn't been broken? What then?

Screw you. The terms were written down. The terms are not held to. The contract is bound by it's terms.

409 posted on 04/20/2009 8:15:18 PM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: FTL
As it stands now, I, too, see little probability of any state seceding from the Union. Just as the War of Independence was supported by a minority of colonists, the majority will do nothing but talk. If history is any indication of the future, it will take a crisis, such as war, starvation, or invasion to stir the masses into action. The Statists will continue control the populus with bread and the circus. The founding fathers learned from the history of Rome and tried to find safeguards to keep the nation from following in its footsteps, but who reads history in this day?
410 posted on 04/20/2009 8:46:39 PM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Screw you. The terms were written down. The terms are not held to. The contract is bound by it's terms.

Screw you, too. I've read the same terms and I say I haven't violated a one of them. Now what?

411 posted on 04/21/2009 3:58:57 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex
They were later forced at gun point to “rejoin” the Union, but they did in fact secede.

They rebelled and they lost.

If those in the armed forces will refuse to kill, wound, and destroy their fellow countrymen, there is a real chance that the secession will succeed.

What if they don't refuse?

412 posted on 04/21/2009 4:00:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So what you're saying is that the people of the state have zero say in whether the state stays in the Union or leaves?

Directly? Yes. They can, of course, vote with their feet or elect representatives that could attempt to reconcile. The historical record, though, doesn't seem to support giving the people a direct choice.

This really isn't all that concerning to me, really. This is what representatives do; they represent. Yes, it's a big decision, but just because it's a big decision doesn't mean that we need a referendum.

413 posted on 04/21/2009 4:23:11 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Screw you, too. I've read the same terms and I say I haven't violated a one of them. Now what?

Now nothing. Good faith is gone, and I walk. There can be no arbiter. If the state cannot secede, then there is no sovereignty in the state, or in it's people.

On entering this union, that sovereignty did not pass from them, especially when their state Constitution stipulates conditions wherein the PEOPLE are free to change their governance at their whim (as both the TX and MT Constitutions particularly, clearly state). Such a document, being ratified by the Congress, without such wording stricken, leaves the ability valid and standing.

414 posted on 04/21/2009 4:29:15 AM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
Directly? Yes. They can, of course, vote with their feet or elect representatives that could attempt to reconcile. The historical record, though, doesn't seem to support giving the people a direct choice.

If memory serves something like 8 or 9 out of the 11 rebelling Southern states gave their population a choice - either through referendum or electing delegates to a secession convention. I'd say that the historical record lies the other way. If people are going to be given a choice between losing their homes and losing their citizenship then I suggest they deserve a say in the matter.

This is what representatives do; they represent.

Shouldn't they represent what the people want? What if only about 45% want to leave and the legislature takes them out anyway. That's a satisfactory solution for you?

415 posted on 04/21/2009 4:41:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Now nothing. Good faith is gone, and I walk. There can be no arbiter. If the state cannot secede, then there is no sovereignty in the state, or in it's people.

A state can secede, just not unilaterally. You make it clear that you aren't interested in an arbiter to begin with, it's your way or the highway. That's a situation guaranteed to leave hard feelings and acrimony behind, and is why the Founders never contemplated the idea of unilateral secession. Secession, as Madison pointed out, requires the agreement of both sides. If you're going to pull a confederacy, walk out and repudiate responsibility for debt and obligations and with all the federal property you can get your mitts on, then don't be surprised if the result is the same. If you do it properly, first negotiating a fair and equitable settlement on all questions of possible disagreement, then you deserve to go in peace and with our best wishes.

On entering this union, that sovereignty did not pass from them, especially when their state Constitution stipulates conditions wherein the PEOPLE are free to change their governance at their whim (as both the TX and MT Constitutions particularly, clearly state).

Quotes please.

Such a document, being ratified by the Congress, without such wording stricken, leaves the ability valid and standing.

Congress doesn't need to strike anything. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes that unnecessary.

416 posted on 04/21/2009 4:47:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
or electing delegates to a secession convention

Ok, but through some sort of representation; I think there was a minority of states that had direct referendums on secession; I may be wrong. But anyway, I'm not saying that there can't be a referendum; I just don't see anything wrong with not having one.

Shouldn't they represent what the people want? What if only about 45% want to leave and the legislature takes them out anyway. That's a satisfactory solution for you?

This is a question for the ages, no? Is the job of the representative to follow the wishes of the majority of those he represents, or is he elected for the purpose of using his best judgment as to what is best for the people? Given that I'm not a particuarly big fan of democracy, I'd say that the proper understanding is the latter.

If people are going to be given a choice between losing their homes and losing their citizenship then I suggest they deserve a say in the matter.

I'm not sure I agree with this characterization. Losing citizenship, perhaps (and I'm not sure about this, honestly)--but losing their homes? I don't think that Texas would turn into East Germany where people's homes would be seized and others herded into ghettos, so I think this is a odd characterization. Further, I doubt seriously that Texas would prevent people from leaving. There are 49 other states, and I'm sure that those who didn't care for the idea of a Republic of Texas would find one of those to be perfectly suitable.

417 posted on 04/21/2009 4:53:48 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Yes, they did lose, and that is why they are in the Union. It is the principle of might makes right. Vae victis!

As far as the Armed Forces goes, I do not know what they will do, nor does anyone else. I suspect that they will do whatever they are ordered to do. If the government decides to confiscate our guns, the military will enforce that, too.

Every law passed by Congress is backed up by force, and that means military force if needed. If a state is forced to submit to a centralized government, how is that different than fascism or communism? Totalitarianism in any form is still totalitarianism. Whatever happened to the men that once said, “Give me liberty or give me death”?

418 posted on 04/21/2009 7:55:33 AM PDT by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
A state can secede, just not unilaterally. You make it clear that you aren't interested in an arbiter to begin with, it's your way or the highway.

Let me endeavor to be more succinct:

One must assume that all efforts toward arbitration have already been wholly explored by the time any succession is attempted. An occasion where a state would quit this union, by it's nature, is a matter of grievous malfeasance on the part of the federal government, and general betrayal by it's sisters to the point that no other reasonable action is possible.

It is my assumption that by the time things have gone that far awry, arbitration has already been expended to the very last increment in the natural course of events. But the threat of secession, the nuclear option, must naturally remain where the sovereignty lies, in the states, and inevitably in the people.

But at other times, the breach is so obvious, and so wide as to be immediately without compromise. Such a grievous error was recently on display in the DC vs. Heller case, wherein, if the court had ruled improperly, as courts these days are wont to do, my state (MT) warned the court, and the federal government by way of the court, that the case would cause an irreconcilable breach of contract with regard to the clear reading of the Second Amendment at the time Montana joined the Union.

That warning was all the notice Montana felt it needed to give, and had the decision gone the wrong way, Montana was quite ready to secede without any other action whatsoever.

See FR: "DC v. Heller - Montana prepares to secede"

If we were to speculate for a moment, and consider the impact of "DC vs. Heller" wrongly decided:

A state put in such a position, with the "final arbiter" already acting by fiat, obviously predisposed against the state (and against the US Constitution), the state in this case, is executing it's duty to it's citizens (and to the US Constitution) in a most exemplary manner.

It is duty bound to protect the rights of it's citizens under the US Constitution above and beyond the flagrant machinations of the usurping federal power. If it must quit the union to do so, then so be it. Quitting the union is the only option left to it in the face of a federal government gone out of control.

It is no longer a matter of debt, or of friendly separation. This is an outright breach of contract, and cannot be reconciled. Not only is there no fair arbitrator, there is no need for arbitration, as such a decision would change by edict the very conditions under which Montana became a state under contract in the first place.

It is changing the prerequisites after the fact, without agreement or representation of the state whatsoever, and relying on federal supremacy in the courts to do so. Were this a business contract and a bribed county judge, The appeal would nullify the contract on it's face, and allow the offended "partner(s)" out of the "partnership" without a doubt, and a suit against the offending entity for damages would win. The partner(s) would not only walk away without debt from the affair, but would probably come away with a damages award. It is dirty pool, plain and simple.

Secession, as Madison pointed out, requires the agreement of both sides.

Not when the contract is breached, it does not. When either party stands in breach of contract, it is null. The parties to the contract can try to sue for damages, but the one who stands in breach is not entitled to recompense. I know. I have been through it several times. I have never been in breach of contract, but I have had them breached on me. The tools go in the trucks, the boys go in the trucks, and I am all done. I start receiving back charges from the contractor, and I ignore them. Soon enough I get served, the contractor blames me for everything wrong on the whole job, to include missed bonuses and coming in x00k over budget. I counter sue for the balance of my contract. Guess who wins? ME.

You may try to say it is different, but it really isn't, Madison or not... He was probably speaking from a position where the business was being handled honorably.

If you're going to pull a confederacy, walk out and repudiate responsibility for debt and obligations and with all the federal property you can get your mitts on, then don't be surprised if the result is the same.

If the other states will not stand up and howl with us and make the fed back off, I am afraid it is the likely inevitability. Especially in the light of all the federal lands the fed has claimed for itself. They "own" more of the state than the state does.

If the federal government had it's way, we would be stripped of all our natural resources, and would not even have access to our own water. Anything bigger than a puddle of pi$$ is designated an "eagle flyway", or some other nonsense and is under federal jurisdiction.

If you do it properly, first negotiating a fair and equitable settlement on all questions of possible disagreement, then you deserve to go in peace and with our best wishes.

Would that it were so, but it isn't likely. If the fed handles it as poorly as the last time, one can be assured of a similar event. What is not so certain is whether the fed has the poop to take on a confederacy consisting of Texas, the South, the lower Midwest, The Desert Southwest, the Rocky Mtn states, and *perhaps* most of California and most of (split) the Pacific NW states, maybe with Alberta, the Northern Territories, and AK thrown in to boot.

I am not being predictive (too much), and I sincerely hope it does not come to it, But I have said it before, and I mean it: If Texas goes, and raises the Stars and Bars over her capitol, all hell is going to break loose. I am fairly confident that everything north of [*perhaps*] in the paragraph above would come to pass almost immediately, as all those states have been chaffed significantly by the heavy weight of the federal yoke. It is that bad.

[roamer_1:] On entering this union, that sovereignty did not pass from them, especially when their state Constitution stipulates conditions wherein the PEOPLE are free to change their governance at their whim (as both the TX and MT Constitutions particularly, clearly state).

Quotes please.

The State of Montana:

Section 1. Popular sovereignty. All political power is vested in and derived from the people. All government of right originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

Section 2. Self-government. The people have the exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state. They may alter or abolish the constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary.

Montana Legislature: Current Montana State Constitution

The State of Texas:

Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Texas Legislature: Current Texas State Constitution, Article I

Congress doesn't need to strike anything. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes that unnecessary.

Nonsense. If that is the case, all sovereignty passes exclusively to the federal government upon entrance of a territory into statehood. This is obviously false. When federal judges have absconded with the law, and ignore the Constitution, rendering law instead by judicial fiat, pausing to consider the Constitution only when it is conveniently to their advantage, it is neither justice nor is it law. It MUST be ignored.

The federation is a tool of the states, not the other way around. When the founders set forth our government, it was meant to serve with an healthy opposition between the various states and the federal hierarchy specifically to preserve the sovereignty of the states.

If the Federal government always has it within it's power to lead the states along, forcing them to comply because they dare not rebel, or because they cannot afford to rebel, then the most effective tool of the states, their ability to rebel, becomes void.

And lastly, in a matter where a confederation has in fact rebelled, leaving the federal government with half it's ability to raise taxes and armies, setting up uncomfortable barriers to infrastructure and removing huge amounts of arable lands and waterways, need that necessarily be a call for war?

A federal government so diminished might be better served to see what might be done to woo the recalcitrant states back onto the reservation. States suddenly faced with paying their own bills for a change might have a sudden change of heart, pining for their Confederate brethren they had failed to support these many years.

There is power in that rebellion that can be used to force change that can no longer be done any other way. Let's see how the left coast and the Northeast do without anyone else to pack their freight.

419 posted on 04/21/2009 10:51:42 AM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Abundy

Who is John Galt, you ask?

I’m not sure, but wherever he is, he’s shrugging!

I’m afraid you are correct. We have already lost this country. Time to head to Galt’s Gulch! ;-)

H


420 posted on 03/20/2010 4:55:16 PM PDT by Dayas_mom (I will never live for the sake of another man or ask another man to live for mine. JG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RED SOUTH

“The BIG question lately - CAN STATES SECEDE?”

Of course they can. I think the question is, can they secede “legally?”

Ultimately, whether they can do it legally or not is really not the issue, however. The ultimate question is can the states secede morally, and of course they can. Everyone knows this is true, unless they believe the American revolution was immoral.

Hank


421 posted on 03/20/2010 5:14:03 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-421 last

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.

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