Posted on 03/07/2018 9:14:46 PM PST by huckfillary
Yes, there is a right of revolution. Our very nation is founded upon it.
However.
Unilateral secession must inevitably have recourse to the Laws of War. A seceding California must either purchase, leave alone, or seize all the assets within the State that were created by and belong to the rest of us.
Since they cannot afford to purchase the Navy facilities at San Diego, for example, and since we would be crazy to give them up, they must have recourse to the Laws of War to have them, and, once that dog is let out of its kennel (which, as you point out above, they have the Right to do), then they will have to abide by the result.
And the result of California warring on the United States is quite unlikely to produce the result the secessionists desire.
Haha California, you don’t think they’ll actually let you secede, do you?
Regards,
The South
A half-truth. According to the DECLARATION, 'it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish' the government.
If you allow government to control the extent and exercise of our Rights.... that makes all the government's 'gun control' laws legitimate.
We may have a Right to a Revolution, but that still doesn't give the government the ability to control secession, particularly since their is no authority given FOR it in the Constitution.
So, as far as immigration law goes, the federal law is the supreme law of the land.
Why, then, would the writer only agree with Sessions' position on immigration under "ordinary circumstances? If he is correct, you should agree with him on the particular issue, even if you disagree with him on other issues.
I cite as my legal precedence the case of "Blind Pig vs. Acorn".
Says who? You can't operate under the Articles of War until war is Declared.
War is a FORMAL process of government, not an action.
If war decides law then we should always be fighting it.
Everyone should be working on ways to distory Washington and it’s army, to reclaim our own freedom.
Secession is a foundational to the very idea of a free country. A free country depends upon this one idea that the people who make it consent to the terms of government, indivuals, regionally, and as a whole.
This means that secession must be a natural and inalienable right only to be used at last resort. The caveoit is secession exposes one to the anarchy between states and thus war.
The civil war legally created new countries then 1 Confederacy. That Confederacy was conquered by the United States. To deny it existed is to deny that usa existed in 1776.
...precedent...
Sorry about that.
Later a fire-eater from one of the slave states said on the floor of Congress what most people of the time believed:
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”
That Congressman then was still known as Honest Abe.
“SCOTUS decision in 1867 in case of Texas v. White held that the Constitution provides no avenue for unilateral secession by a State once it joins the prison, er...Union. The acts of secession, the Confederacy, all deeds of Confederate State governments, etc. were all null and void.”
Victor’s Justice.
It can’t be a surprise that federal officials defended the federal government’s decision to kill 600,000 Americans.
You keep overlooking the “...and having the power...” part of that quote. The South was so inclined. And they did try to rise up and shake off the existing government. But they didn’t want it badly enough to win their rebellion, unlike our Founding Fathers. They were lacking in power. Or perhaps it was because they were motivated by slavery and in the end that really wasn’t worth the struggle.
And loser's whining.
If California seceded it would end up in a civil war as some counties want to remain in the United States.
The legislatures of every Southern State voted to secede so it was not exactly mob rule. The Civil War cost the equivalent of 20,000,000 lives. If there any cause today other than freedom itself that would be worth forcing a state or states to remain in the Union?
Lincoln's support of secession is mentioned and it takes you exactly one post to play the race card. This ties your indoor record.
Next you will say the word Hitler.
Funny, I don't see the word "secession" anywhere in Lincoln's speech. References to "rebellion", sure. But noting on secession.
Next you will say the word Hitler.
Let the record show that the first reference to him was from a Lost Causer.
The seditionists in California are going to learn a harsh lesson...
The DNC won’t let CA’s electoral spiked club leave the Union.
The DNC is soon to be outlawed as a criminal organization...
I could not be more serious right now... Let California go.
No, let the whiners leave like they claimed they would if/when Trump won.
The US Constitutions is silent on the subject of secession. This makes it up to the states to decide. If they vote to leave then they can go. I have no problem with any state wanting to go on it’s own. Vaya con Dios. Stopping a state from leaving is not worth spilling even one drop of blood over.
If we could separate CA from the mainland and tugboat it hundreds of miles out to sea; I’d say let it go.
Since we can’t do that; CA cannot secede. It’s simply too much of a security risk. Also, since the dems in CA allowed an invasion of foreigners for votes and power, those people must be removed as the normal and just part of the process of fixing the terrible injustice done by the dems. This is so simple even an illegal can understand it.
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.