Interestingly enough, the Civil War did not result in a Constitutional Amendment barring secession. However, Amendment #14 does state that people who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" can be barred from serving in the federal gov't. And it reinforces the superiority of federal law over state law.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: OK, John. I'll grant you, for the sake of this argument, that there is no specific law prohibiting secession. In a court of law, in a situation like this, attorneys will cite precedence, previous cases, even international laws and laws from other countries. Secession of any US state or states would be on very shaky, but not entirely untenable ground. Back to the practical side of the argument, the cost of litigation would bankrupt any state well before the Federal government ran out of ink to print more money. And keep in mind as well, that the currency of the state attempting to secede would be pretty much worthless, trade would cease, and corporate bank accounts would be frozen, etc, etc, etc.

of course there isnt - once seceded - you no longer recognize the authourity of the USA courts or its laws.
no more lawyers - it is now ambassadors.
and - yes - money is a HUGE issue.
and, again - if using Kansas, the posters home state as an example - there is no access to any other nation, except the USA for import/export. just imagine the Piracy problems. and then wonder if the USA will extradite the pirates to the United Counties of Kansas for trial?

Hmm it is an interesting thought.
When the Soviet Bloc fell apart and had breakaway republics the world pretty much sat back and let it unfold.
As for legal challenges.. Wouldnt it have to go to a neutral party?
If a state no longer recognizes the authority of the federal gov't they sure as hell aren't going to plead their case in federal court.

Very interesting, and thought provoking question.

There is precedence which shows that secession is possible in the form of the Confederacy. Although it was ultimately unsuccessful, the following loss of a military campaign to retain independence is certainly different than the right to declare independence and attempt to win/retain that independence. Either politically or militarily.

You also have founding fathers who believed strongly in the power of states rights. The Tenth Amendment is no further evidence. The lack of any law, or constitutional amendment proclaiming that a state cannot secede, and the concept that the nation is a collection of sovereign states bound together for a common good would support the right to secede.

On the flip side, there are now anti-treason laws on the books to punish acts of sedition, rebellion, conspiracy, insurrection, and advocacy of the overthrow of the government. Secession of a state would certainly involve some if not all of these items to have occurred, which would technically be an act of treason under current law. In that case, it would appear secession would not be allowed. Although the outcome secession isn’t against the law, the acts necessary to arrive at secession certainly appear to be.

Whether the application of this law to a case of secession would be deemed Constitutional, or in violation of the Constitution is up for debate.

Ultimately, I am not sure secession is a legal right that can really be officially granted in a nation which favors a strong union. Or at least in a way that would allow the union to be strong enough to provide adequate and reassuring defense of the whole.

Secession is most likely a right that instead is afforded to people and states for the same reasons the US States declared independence from Britain. It wasn’t their legal right expressed on paper, but it was their human right to be free of tyranny and unjust governance.

So in the case of the US, and it’s federal laws that would seemingly make it illegal, it would still technically be a right to secede since the secession would essentially be a State no longer recognizing the rights or laws of the federal gov’t, these being among them.

[This message has been edited by Fformula88 (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Interestingly enough, the Civil War did not result in a Constitutional Amendment barring secession.

It would have took a two thirds state majority to make it happen. There were 18 northern states and eleven southern states. Couldn't happen.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: However, Amendment #14 does state that people who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" can be barred from serving in the federal gov't.

Actually, that is only spelled out if they had held office with the government at the time of insurrection/rebellion.
Interesting post none the less.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: This is probably where this discussion is headed: First, Floridas (and some other eastern states) demographics have shifted since this map was drawn. Sorry, NO Disney World for Redneckistan. You'd have to bring your passport and exchange your 'currency' for US dollars. The whole thing probably isn't a good idea, given todays world econonomics. But if ya gotta go, good luck to ya!

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I'm sticking to the high ground here.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Doesn't the Pledge of Allegiance say :"One Nation.....

Yes.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: indivisible......

Yes.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: forever?"

No.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Unless you farmers pick up guns and somehow manage to defeat the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and National Guard. And the "friendly forces" of the remaining US Allies.

Don't forget how many of those farmers Sons are in the Military, and how much of the National Guard are farmers. I believe there would be a large number of AWOL's.

John,

I believe it is in the States rights. The reasoning I have is the same one I would use at work. It says in my contract that if I don't give notice when I quit that I void the contract, and will no longer have a job. Seriously, apparently this is an issue somewhere. Anyway, once a State succeeds, the constitution is null and void for that state, or whatever it wants to be called. Because it is no longer a part of the Federal system it does not have to play by those rules.

Brad

quote Originally posted by jstricker: The US Constitution, while not spelling out the right of secession specifically, also never prohibit it and therefore are covered by the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's my interpretation as well. Since it's not specifically spelled out that a state cannot secede, they retain that right. Should the people and the government of a state choose to secede, they have the right to do so under the Constitution. I don't even think it would be a military issue today as it was for Lincoln. All the Federal government has to do today to keep the states in line is threaten to cut off the Federal teet.

It would be an interesting proposition, though.
California could survive independently. It has enough agriculture and industry to provide for itself.
Much of the Midwest is strong agriculturally, but weak industrially. That was the undoing of the South in the Civil War.
Texas, well, Texas was Texas before there was a USA, and I suspect it will be here after the USA is a memory. They've got oil, guns, agriculture, industry, and a lot of Texans who don't take any crap.
The South East has lots of agriculture, a fair amount of industry, but would need to rely on trade to survive. As long as the fat cats in D.C. need their stogies to chomp on while making back room deals, NC's fiscal security is assured.
New England would crown a Kennedy King and try to start up their own monarchy.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Actually, that is only spelled out if they had held office with the government at the time of insurrection/rebellion. Interesting post none the less.

While that may have been the spirit of the law, the letter of the law is pretty open-ended. Here's the text of Amendment #14:

quote Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

As you can see, the wording doesn't specifically refer to the Confederacy or the Civil War. We all know that was the intention. But the wording is left open to interpretation. Not a good thing, IMO. Because if the federal gov't perceives a threat to its authority, it could use this as an excuse to bar people from voting or serving in the federal gov't.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: They have the right to secede. Just like speed limits are not federal mandates... Just expect to lose a LOT of revenue. It would not be in their be$t intere$t to $ecede. I wouldn't give any state more than a month before it crumbled. Things are already pretty tight.

I think you're discounting that all the tax revenue and various fees that flow from a state to the federal government would end. That revenue would then stay locally. It would be an interesting case study to see how those numbers work out. Of course, with the federal government's deficit spending, a case could be made that a state could see a revenue shortfall. Conversely, many states would have a case that they receive less federal allocations than the federal taxes they pay.

It would be interesting, indeed.

But is it a "rebellion" to secede?

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: re·bel·lion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈbel-yən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government


Now, if I decide I can't live under the current government and decide to leave the country, maybe buy a little island somwhere, have I rebelled against the US?

One school of thought is that the South NEVER rebelled against the United States, they simply wanted to leave. The North came in, invaded their territory, and drug them back in if they liked it or not. Who, in that secnario, actually "rebelled" against the Constitution? The South never attempted to take one foot of ground before they were invaded by the North, beyond their existing state borders. They never tried to overthrow the government, they just wanted to leave.

Personally, IMHO, the North was the side that rebelled against the Constitution is at least as many ways, if not more, than the South.

But it is an interesting point. One more to consider, although it says what you can and can't do if they decide you're an insurrectionist, it never actually says you CAN'T be an insurrectionist. It's basically a matter of loyalty. If you've done this, you don't have the loyalty to the United States to serve in these positions, or vote, etc.

Good food for thought.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: As you can see, the wording doesn't specifically refer to the Confederacy or the Civil War. We all know that was the intention. But the wording is left open to interpretation. Not a good thing, IMO. Because if the federal gov't perceives a threat to its authority, it could use this as an excuse to bar people from voting or serving in the federal gov't.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: One school of thought is that the South NEVER rebelled against the United States, they simply wanted to leave. The North came in, invaded their territory, and drug them back in if they liked it or not. Who, in that secnario, actually "rebelled" against the Constitution? The South never attempted to take one foot of ground before they were invaded by the North, beyond their existing state borders. They never tried to overthrow the government, they just wanted to leave. Personally, IMHO, the North was the side that rebelled against the Constitution is at least as many ways, if not more, than the South. John Stricker

That is the thinking of many sothereners who call the "civil war" THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGRESSION

Many of my neighbors say that.

The option to suceed is not a rebellion, as you are not actually opposing the government, you are seperating from that government. It is (or becomes a) rebellion when you take up arms against a government...If its only paperwork, a sucession can take place without a rebellion (is my opinion only, not based in any fact)

Whether it is rebellious or not is a tough call. It is not open conflict, but the act of seceding is a dramatic announcement of that the state in question is not recognizing the authority of the federal government. It isn’t an open rebellion in terms of having a physical conflict, but I do think it can be construed as an “opposition to one in authority or dominance.”

Especially since it is unlikely a state would secede without what it felt was due cause. Some kind of oppressive or infringing policy or act on the part of the federal government with which the state does not like and does not feel it can continue to live under.

[This message has been edited by Fformula88 (edited 10-05-2009).]

The states may have the right to secede from the union, but they would never suceed. As an independent entity the state would need to create a currency, militia and some means to produce income from taxes (more than they already do) to fund their defensive militia. They would need to be recognized by the other states and countries as independent nations.

While the Fed would certainly point out and invoke legislation that came out of that 1860s era, the secessionist state[s] today, would consider it a non issue. Most certainly, the Judical Branch of the US would consider any serious talk of secession to be treason and conspiracy to commit treason (among other violations), but the State(s) involved would not---rather, they would fall back on their own state constitution for relevance--just as Texas did when declaring itself free from Mexico. There were certainly laws, treaties, and agreements between Texas and Mexico, but the declaration made up at Washington-on-the Brazos basically just ignored and cast them aside--relying instead, on the newly written document. Which, is exactly what prompted Santa Anna to invade Texas in 1835-36, and we all know how that worked out for the Mexican Govt, which would be equivilent to the US Govt today.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: But is it a "rebellion" to secede?

That's a good question. Although I have to admit my post regarding Amendment #14 was a bit off-topic. I was just responding to CliffW's comment.

Regarding the original question...

I agree that the states do technically have the right to secede from the Union. The lack of verbiage in the Constitution barring it, combined with the verbiage in Amendment #10, implies that the right exists. And I also agree that under the right circumstances, it's a right which needs to be exercised. ( I'm sure many people will disagree on what constitutes "the right circumstances", though. )

But I also understand the difference between theory and practice, and strongly believe that theory is worthless if it cannot be borne out in practice. Hence my arguments regarding the practicality (or lack thereof) of secession in the present.

However, I also have to concede that secession may become practical or even necessary under certain circumstances. I just hope that our nation never reaches that point.

of course it is rebellion to secede
otherwise, why do it?

The question I guess would be what would the outcome be of seceding?
War on part of the U.S. to take the land back?
Dam the rivers flowing in?
Would a sucessful seceding happen by agreement of both sides to let it happen?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-05-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: The question I guess would be what would the outcome be of seceding? War on part of the U.S. to take the land back? Dam the rivers flowing in? Would a sucessful seceding happen by agreement of both sides to let it happen?

the options are endless
and, none of them have happy endings
yes, a few folk will of course profit greatly, meaning many will suffer

there could be no agreement. the USA would be burdened by the offspring, which it now needs to defend, and defend for free.

The question I guess would be what would the outcome be of seceding?

The formation of a new nation, either by one state or a coalition of states working together or, if it fails, the reconstitution of the seceding states back into the United States or, potentially, other countries like Canada or Mexico.

War on part of the U.S. to take the land back?

A very real possibility.

Dam the rivers flowing in?

That would be the least of their worries but yes, amongst other things.

Would a sucessful seceding happen by agreement of both sides to let it happen?

Most likely by a treaty to end hostilities and at some point, both sides recognizing the other's sovereignty.


John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: The states may have the right to secede from the union, but they would never suceed. As an independent entity the state would need to create a currency, militia and some means to produce income from taxes (more than they already do) to fund their defensive militia. They would need to be recognized by the other states and countries as independent nations.

Each of those is not that difficult--nor are they difficult as a cumulative effort--especially if a state or union of states did not have a state income tax previously. Almost all monies that previously went to Federal coffers would be nearly instantly available for the new soveriegn nation.
Anything one wishes to use can become currency if backed by something.
The USD currently is backed by nothing more than several trillion dollars in treasury bonds---debt.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Each of those is not that difficult--nor are they difficult as a cumulative effort--especially if a state or union of states did not have a state income tax previously. Almost all monies that previously went to Federal coffers would be nearly instantly available for the new soveriegn nation. Anything one wishes to use can become currency if backed by something. The USD currently is backed by nothing more than several trillion dollars in treasury bonds---debt.

yes, they are not difficult in concept - but they are tough to actually execute.
there is also the problem of during transitional times - there is noone to enforce ownerships. looting & squatting.
and, why would anyone bother paying taxes during this time? there is no IRS for them anymore. and, what are they gonna pay with? US Dollars?

this would almost seem to be an open invatation for anarchy, and a land of oppurtunity for some of the larger gangs

Does a state have the right to secede? Yes, since it is not a power assigned to the Federal Government, and thus, is a right reserved to the States or to the People. (which, I suppose, allows a 'person' to secede). Anyway, one of the reasons for forming the union was to combine strengths, in areas in which one state was weak. Think industrial capacity, economic capacity, food, etc. So, while it is entirely possible for a state to succeed, it isn't necessarily in the state's best interest to do so. There are very few states that have the resources to go it alone. Texas may be in a fairly unique position, in that it has the capacity for self-sustenence fairly easily. In other words, the Union needs Texas more than Texas needs the Union. I'm certain that other states are in similar standing.

It has been posited that the state that secedes would lose Federal money. The inverse is also true, in that the Federal coffers would lose that states contributions. Since the Federal government only has money that comes from the states, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that for many of the states, they would be better off free from having to carry the burden of other states.

(edited to fix spelling of 'secede' .... )

[This message has been edited by dsnover (edited 10-06-2009).]

Exactly--which is why I mentioned poor states today were the rich states back in 1860. The poorest state today is Mississippi-according to many stats. It was among the richest in 1860 due to it's cotton production. Today, it recieves very large amounts of federal $ thru the revenue sharing part of the US Tax regulations. The richer states support the poorest states.

Calif, tho--being one of the richer states is-- basically bankrupt.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Does a state have the right to succeed? Yes, since it is not a power assigned to the Federal Government, and thus, is a right reserved to the States or to the People. (which, I suppose, allows a 'person' to succeed)... So, while it is entirely possible for a state to succeed, it isn't necessarily in the state's best interest to do so. It has been posited that the state that succeeds would lose Federal money...

I think you're accidentally using the word "succeed" instead of "secede". Not trying to be rude, but IMO that's pretty funny.

This is an important question. I decided to do some research on it.
The most educational thing I could find was this article about seceding from the union.
http://www.glossynews.com/a...lish/lopez-ass.shtml

I would like to say it is barely on topic and probably not entirely safe for a work environment.

I do not think a state has a right to secede... the state joined the collective, and became part of forming 'A More Perfect Union...'

The US Supreme Court seems to agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Also, another poster mentioned US willingness to support start-up nations... like the former Soviet Eastern Bloc nations, and Taiwan (ROC).
For the record, the US maintains that there is a 'unified' China (PRC). Can't anger the guys whose money keeps our defecit machine at full speed.

Thank goodness though... back in the day when the US broke from Britain... that we did have world powers that quickly recognized our soveriegnty and opened trade and financial relations with this startup... though it was for their own selfish reasons... not so much sympathy for the new kid in town.

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: I do not think a state has a right to secede... the state joined the collective, and became part of forming 'A More Perfect Union...' The US Supreme Court seems to agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White Also, another poster mentioned US willingness to support start-up nations... like the former Soviet Eastern Bloc nations, and Taiwan (ROC). For the record, the US maintains that there is a 'unified' China (PRC). Can't anger the guys whose money keeps our defecit machine at full speed. Thank goodness though... back in the day when the US broke from Britain... that we did have world powers that quickly recognized our soveriegnty and opened trade and financial relations with this startup... though it was for their own selfish reasons... not so much sympathy for the new kid in town.

John--did you drop him on his head when he was a baby? I don't think he quite understands the concept of secession. (it severs the seceding state from all restrictions, opinions, and laws previously applied by it's former association.)

1. Supreme court rulings are null and void the second a state decides to secede--as far as that state is concerned.
2. What part of
"self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
do you think the SCOTUS has the authority to dissolve?.
3. Official US stance on ROC (Taiwan) is that the US will protect Taiwan if attacked by PRC as long as ROC does not declare independence. This has been the long standing doctrine and is still in effect as far as I've heard. The US does NOT sell military hardware to Communist China (PRC). Do we sell or provide arms to ROC?

quote The ROC's armed forces are equipped with weapons obtained primarily from the United States, examples being 150 F-16A/B Block-20 MLU fighters, 6 E-2 Hawkeyes, licensed produced Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, 63 AH-1W attack helos, 39 OH-58D scout helos and 200 Patriot PAC-II SAMs. In 1992 the USA agreed to sell the AEGIS SPY 1F to Taiwan, to be installed on a special version of the Perry-class frigates. Taiwan later gave up on this plan due to technical difficulties.[6] The ROC has also procured two Hai Lung class class submarines from the Netherlands and 60 Mirage 2000-5Di/Ei fighters from France together with six French La Fayette stealth frigates. Taiwan also has four German made minesweepers. In 2001, the United States approved the sale of a number of weapons systems, including the sale of eight diesel submarines, six Patriot PAC-3 SAMs and 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Out of the items authorised, Taiwan currently has four Kidd-class destroyers, M109A6 units, two additional E2-C Hawkeyes and nine Chinook heavy transport helicopters in service. It is unclear if or when the balance of the equipment will be supplied. The delivery of diesel submarines in particular is doubtful, as the United States does not manufacture diesel submarines. In light of the continuous ballistic missile buildup by the PRC, Taiwan has also demonstrated the capability of long range supersonic cruise missiles. The military budget for 2007 (passed 16 June) included funds for the procurement of 12 P-3C Orion patrol aircraft, 66 F-16 C/D Block 52 fighters, the upgrade of existing PAC-2 batteries to PAC-3 standard and a feasibility study into the planned purchase of conventionally-powered submarines offered by the US way back in 2001. In July 2007 it was reported that the ROC Army would request the purchase of 30 AH-64D II Apache attack helicopters from in the 2008 defence budget.[7] The United Daily News reported that as many as 90 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters would also be ordered to replace the UH-1Hs currently in service. During August, Taiwan requested 60 AGM-84L Harpoon Block II missiles, 2 Harpoon guidance control units, 30 Harpoon containers, 30 Harpoon extended air-launch lugs, 50 Harpoon upgrade kits from AGM-84G to AGM-84L configuration and other related elements of logistics and program support, the total value being $125 million. The United States government indicated its approval of the order with notification to the United States Congress of the potential sale.[8] In mid September 2007, the Pentagon notified the U.S. Congress of P-3C Orion order, which included 12 Orions and three "spare aircraft", along with an order for 144 SM-2 Block IIIA missiles. The total value of the 12 P-3C Orions were estimated at around $1.96 billion and $272 million for the 144 SM-2 missiles.[9] A contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin to refurbish the 12 P-3C Orion aircraft for Taiwan on 2009-03-13, with deliveries to start in 2012.[10] In mid November 2007, the Pentagon notified the US Congress about a possible sale to upgrade Taiwan's Patriot missile batteries to the PAC-3 standard. The total value of the upgrade could be as much as $939 million.[11] The US government announced on the 3rd of October that it planned to sell $6.5 billion dollars worth of arms to Taiwan ending the freeze of arms sales to Taiwan. The plans include $2.5 billion dollars worth of 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters with night-vision sensors, radar, Stinger Block I air-to-air missiles and 1000 AGM-114L Hellfire missiles. Additionally it will include the sale of PAC-3 missiles (330), 4 missile batteries, radar sets, ground stations and other equipment valued up to $3.1 billion. 4 E-2T aircraft upgrades will also be included worth up to $250 million. $200 million worth of Harpoon Block II missiles (32) will also be available for sale, $334 million worth of various aircraft spare parts and 182 Javelin missiles, with 20 Javelin command launchers.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-06-2009).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: John--did you drop him on his head when he was a baby? I don't think he quite understands the concept of secession.

His Mother and I are so proud..............................of his wife.

He brings up a good point, which "right" are we talking about? The legal right or the moral right?

When the colonies seceded from England, they did NOT have the legal right. Many of the rebels were hung for secession, it was a crime against the crown. Obviously, written law be damned, the colonies thought they had the moral right and obligation to secede.

I think every person has the moral right to secede, regardless of whether or not the tyrant thinks it's legal.

To the citation of Tx vs. White, their logic was flawed in the opinion that the union was " indissoluble " the moment one more state was added to that union.

IMHO, when you say the pledge of allegiance and use the words "indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all" they are real, and important. However, does it remain indivisible when there is no more liberty for all? Not IMHO.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: I think you're accidentally using the word "succeed" instead of "secede". Not trying to be rude, but IMO that's pretty funny.

Fixed... And yes, I suppose it is pretty funny! In some ways I think that 'succeed' may be an accurate word, too..... ;-)

quote Originally posted by jstricker: However, does it remain indivisible when there is no more liberty for all? Not IMHO.

Good point. I would like to add to it. Does it remain indivisible when there is not justice for all ? Solcialism is not justice. And, also, we pledge allegiance not only to America (or it's flag), we also pledge allegiance to the Republic for which it stands. Which is becoming a stretch of the imagination today.

seem to keep going in circles....

Topic: Does a State have the right to Secede from the Union?

try it the other way around: who grants rights? where do rights come from?

now, add in secede from union. which means - no longer part of the USA. which means, no laws/rules/rights of the USA apply
no laws/rules/rights of ANYWHERE except those of the newly formed nation apply.

think of it like "do you have to be home at 10, cause mommy said so, if you run away from home"

Something else to think about. If a certain state or states seceded. I'd have to think many people in that state didn't want to secede, and many people in other states wished their state did. So there would be some serious emigration going on back and forth.

Interesting to think that there was a time when there was a CSA, Confederate States of America.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: who grants rights?

Oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Oxymoron if I have ever heard one.

much the point, isnt it?
Topic: Does a State have the right to Secede from the Union?

maybe one should actually check with the population of that state, and ask them?
using Texas as example:
is it up to me if Texas can secede? nope. if there is ANYONE who who can grant that right - it would be the citizens of Texas
next - does anyone have the right to DENY Texas to secede? again - #1 on that list is the actual citizens of Texas.
and - the next amazing thing, if Texas was to secede: would the illegal aliens residing in Texas now be legal citizens of the nation of Texas?
and, do the previous citizens of the USA forfiet the SS money they have been donating for so many years?

Who grants the rights? No one.

quote self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

unalienable.

Does a state forfiet the revenues it sends in now?--of course. It may get a share back, but richer states never get back what they send in--once common defence is factored out.
After secession?--of course.

quote Do we sell the ROC arms?

Yes, We do. Lots of them from the F-16 to the M-16.

As for sucession, several candidates in Texas, including at least 2 for governor, have sucession ideas. (news sources of dubious value)

As for outsiders supporting sucession, many won't get involved in the actual sucession for fear the two sides will unite to repel the 'invader.' its happended in the past. lol

quote Originally posted by maryjane: snip all...

yes he did drop me on my head... and 'bout spilt all the common sense out of me. I was a Democrat up to the age of 3 no thanks to him!

But JS did get EXACTLY what I was implying (and I am certain it was not lost on you either)... the moral side vs the legal side. We approached our answers from two very different paths. Both of them correct. Ain't this unified country grand?!

as to your points...

1) obviously you are right... a seceeding state would of course not recognize the tenets and laws of where it broke from..., my point is that it doesn't make it right.
2) I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve God given inalienable rights... but just becuase (for example) you (not you as in MJ... 'you' as in anyone) but just beacuse you can claim something impedes your God given right for the pursuit of happiness... doesn't make it right for you to secede. Say... back in the day... "My wife can't vote... I am going to secede." "Taxes are eating my happiness pursuit fund... I am going to secede." "I have been drafted as militia for a war I do not support... I am going to secede."... What I am saying is that life, liberty, pursuit is pretty dang broad... you can shoehorn any issue you want into 1 of those three... but I don't think that is either the letter or the intent of what that statement means.
3) I know we sell them arms. Still though... We, (as most every other nation on earth) do not recognize an independent Taiwan. Pretty two-faced of us. Talk about ugly... I shudder to think what would happen if war broke out between ROC and PRC.

.... and John, when you were mentioning the Pledge of Allegiance... Neptune might point out that you left off the word "forever."

------------------
<---- did you buy Cliff a beer?

Does that mean New America Republic would have to have Obama


We should have draft picks of our leaders