quote Originally posted by Fosgatecavy98: Does that mean New America Republic would have to have Obama We should have draft picks of our leaders

lol - that one of the fun parts: would the USA drop like dominos, and join the newly formed nation?
and - again - I wonder about citizenship and what is currently considered "illegal aliens"?
and - even more outragous - again - Texas as the example: what if just Montana wanted to join them? a dis-jointed nation? doable?

quote Originally posted by Fosgatecavy98: We should have draft picks of our leaders

Wanting the job at all should be a disqualification! heh.

Texas would seceede... and suddenly find ourselves the the Province of Quebec, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Russellville KS, the Utah Jazz, the gas pumpers union of NJ, and cell block D of Gitmo.

By God... we'd find a way to make it work.

I think if Texas seceded, we'd have another Alamo.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I think if Texas seceded, we'd have another Alamo.

yes, Mexico trying to take it back would quickly make a mess of things, wouldn't it?
especially with so many mexicans already occupying the territory
suddenly, the mexican border to the USA doubles....

once again, it will be the USA to the rescue, wouldn't it? daddy having to come rescue the rebelious child....
while most of the population would be screaming WHY? THEY LEFT! because it would be in the USA's best interests.

Probably not, but spoken like someone that has no idea of the mindset in TX and the rest of the midwest.

Between the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air Guard, the Texas Maritime Regiment, and the Texas State Guard, they have about 1/2 the number of regular army Mexican forces, but a lot of the Mexican army is very poorly trained and equipped. Like many other countries, they rely on the US to defend them. That added to the fact the Texas forces would be defending their homeland from fortified positions means that the Mexican government would probably best heed the advice of "Don't Mess with Texas" or Mexico might become a Texas County, assuming they'd want it.

Don't forget, too, that the Southwest has a large supply of manpower called "illegals" that would probably join and fight to defend Texas from the US Government in exchange for citizenship.

It would NOT be an easy thing to take Texas back if they ever decided to leave..

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, Mexico trying to take it back would quickly make a mess of things, wouldn't it?

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: 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."

I do understand, but a few things come to mind.
1. You are still looking at things from a United States of America standpoint.
2. Your assertion of what's "Right" makes both the Texas Revolution and the American Revolution "wrong". It was exactly the intent and letter of that phrase to mean that free men had the God given right to self determination--and it was directed to the British Crown and anyone else who might have ideas of "ownership" toward the individual or combined states. We did, as a group--in 1775, secede from the British Empire, just as we (Texas), as the newly declared Republic of Texas, seceded from Mexico. If one buys into that phrase from the Declaration of Independence, (and I do) one has to apply it to men everywhere--throughout time--past-present, and future. In seccession, there is no credence given to the prior agreement(s)--none. It's WHY ya seceed--to throw off those existing yokes. No country on the face of the earth, has ever asked permission to leave a group of states or nations--they just leave. It's not like we're gonna file a divorce petition. Geeze--get your mind around what seccession actually is. What you are implying Blake, flies in the face of everything that's happened in the world. Do you really believe, that once a soveiergn entity is absorbed into a confederation of any size--that it forever more gives up it's right to self determination? That--is completely preposterous. If Puerto Rico were to pettion and be accepted as the 51st state, do you think the people of Puerto Rico forever and forever will never again have a say in their own destiny?

Think about what you are saying. Look at a global map circa 1880, compare it to a contemporary map and ask yourself if your assumption holds water. The very definition of freedom means peoples have a right to self determination, and that freedom can never be taken or signed away--it simply cannot..

Look at things from outside the box you have lived in your entire life--look at things thru the eyes of history and see if you don't come away with a different view.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Alaska and Hawaii are separated from the rest of the US. Doable? The Falklands are separated from England. Doable? History says yes--difficult, but doable.

yes, but in the examples, there are international waters between the pieces
but - either way - I would expect the map previously posted to be fairly accurate, and "disjointed" pieces probably will never even be an issue....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, but in the examples, there are international waters between the pieces ....

Are you saying it is not possible to drive from Texas to Alaska?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Are you saying it is not possible to drive from Texas to Alaska?

your choice. take a cruise, drive yer car.

but, I'd really like to see the logistics of using the topic starters state of Kansas - being fully landlocked
anything going in or out needing to cross USA land, airspace or waterways

Why is that amazing to you?

1) they are here because they want to be and they do NOT want to be in Mexico
2) there is ample precedent for this happening before. During the Revolutionary war slaves were made free men if they served for a year and the North offered a similar option to slaves during the civil war. Both times these were people that were "outcasts" in regular society and many jumped at the chance to serve and become a part of that society.

In the case of the Mexican Illegals, I personally wouldn't ask them to fight their former countrymen, I'd use them to shore the defenses against the US government. Let the Texas Guard deal primarily with the Mexican threat, if any.

Your comment shows that you truly don't understand the "mindset" when you say they're currently trying to evacuate them. I don't see a whole lot of animosity towards hispanics and I've been in these areas a lot. What I see is a fiercely independent people that don't take kindly to those that want "something for nothing". If an Illegal immigrant wishes to earn citizenship by serving, I'm betting that would be embraced by most, although certainly not all.

Have you spent a lot of time in this part of the country?

Which brings up yet another question, you seem to assume that if Texas Seceded, the Mexican govt would either try to take over or side with the US. To me, that's a pretty big assumption to make. I'm not sure either would hold true.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I would wonder which way those illegals, which these people with this 'special mindset' are currently trying to evacuate, would go and even more amazing is the willingness to now embrace them

nope, was just expanding on the "Alamo" post.
but, good to see the understanding of the illegals just wanting to make a better life for themselves. something most poeple just blow right past.

and, yes - I do agree that any foriegn power thinking using the freshly disjointed Texas as a spot to grab a foothold in America is in for quite a surprise.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: your choice. take a cruise, drive yer car. but, I'd really like to see the logistics of using the topic starters state of Kansas - being fully landlocked anything going in or out needing to cross USA land, airspace or waterways

Ya mean what you'd like to see is some way to derail the thread in your usual contrarian and trollish manner?

How bout this--Martians land and take over Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arkansas--leaving Kansas isolated.

Yes, well, I would like to see the logistics of Michigan surviving without the rest of us paying their way, but that isn't part of the equation of this thread--is it?

It's already been established as a given, that the agricultral states would most likely join the petroleum producing states.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: No country on the face of the earth, has ever asked permission to leave a group of states or nations--they just leave. It's not like we're gonna file a divorce petition.

Well, just off the top of my head... Cuba comes to mind. Didn't they petition the US for independence after the Spanish-American War... and we give it to them? I know it is usually violent and painful... but still, the 'No country' bit is a reach.

Believe me Don... I get it. 100% I get it. It is because populations of like minded people rose up and broke the law to create (hopefully) a better place for themselves. As you pointed out... I live blessedly in two shining examples of that (US & Texas)... I believe you are saying it is a moral and God given right to secede. I am saying there is no legal right to secede. That is how I chose to interpret Strickers title.

I do think that if the founding fathers wanted a legal 'out' in the Bill of Rights for this more perfect union... there would have been a constitutional ammendment to such. Freedom of press, religion, right to bear arms, right to vote, ....right to secede. Man, that last one ain't in there.

But again... I DO get it. Honestly!
You and I will bask on Saturday in the shadow of a monument honoring that moral right in San Jacinto.

-edit... mispelled Dads name

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

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: Well, just off the top of my head... Cuba comes to mind. Didn't they petition the US for independence after the Spanish-American War... and we give it to them? I know it is usually violent and painful... but still, the 'No country' bit is a reach. Believe me Don... I get it. 100% I get it. It is because populations of like minded people rose up and broke the law to create (hopefully) a better place for themselves. As you pointed out... I live blessedly in two shining examples of that (US & Texas)... I believe you are saying it is a moral and God given right to secede. I am saying there is no legal right to secede. That is how I chose to interpret Strickers title. I do think that if the founding fathers wanted a legal 'out' in the Bill of Rights for this more perfect union... there would have been a constitutional ammendment to such. Freedom of press, religion, right to bear arms, right to vote, ....right to secede. Man, that last one ain't in there. But again... I DO get it. Honestly! You and I will bask on Saturday in the shadow of a monument honoring that moral right in San Jacinto. -edit... mispelled Dads name

you see the term "legal" anywhere in there? \/ \/

quote This is not directed at any particular party, but it's still marked as political. As you understand it, believe it, whatever, just like the title says, Do the individual states have the right to secede from the United States? Why or why not? If you had a resolution on the ballot and it was passed, giving your governor the right to demand your state's independence if conditions x, y, and z are met, and those things happen, do you believe the state has the right to secede? I'd like to hear a number of viewpoints on both sides. John Stricker

In fact--do you see anything there that refers to rights under the US constitution?
no.

It's not about that--never was.
The rights being discussed existed before the Constitution--and long before anglos 1st set foot on North America, therefore could not/can not be given nor taken away by any entity.

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

in response to MJ.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: He (blake) brings up a good point, which "right" are we talking about? The legal right or the moral right?

I am saying... when I read the title... my mind went immediately to the legal side of the question. Yours obviosuly went to the moral side of the question. You asked and answered for me did I see the word legal anywhere in there? Let me ask you...
Do you see the word 'moral' anywhere in the title?

No.

I just see two different views weighing in on a most interesting question.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Alaska and Hawaii are separated from the rest of the US. Doable? The Falklands are separated from England. Doable? History says yes--difficult, but doable.

This reminds me of something. Remember how the British Empire imploded? Something like that might possibly happen to the USA, too. We have several far-flung territories that would probably be "spun off" so to speak as our federal government collapses under its own weight. But I have some doubts as to whether any of the contiguous 48 states would be "spun off".

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: in response to MJ. I am saying... when I read the title... my mind went immediately to the legal side of the question. Yours obviosuly went to the moral side of the question. You asked and answered for me did I see the word legal anywhere in there? Let me ask you... Do you see the word 'moral' anywhere in the title? No. I just see two different views weighing in on a most interesting question.

I never said it was a moral right--i put no tag on it at all--neither did Magna Carta.
Magna Carta BTW, is unsigned.

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: I am saying... when I read the title... my mind went immediately to the legal side of the question. Yours obviosuly went to the moral side of the question. I just see two different views weighing in on a most interesting question.

This is sad, to me, and part of why we are where we are.

I'm not picking on you, Blake, just observing, and I phrased the question so that I COULD see how people picked their answers.

We often hear that when it comes to the law something to the effect of "Just because it's right don't make it legal". That's been a sad truth for hundreds, if not the thousands of years that civilizations have developed and enforced what is known as a "code of laws".

Having said that, RIGHTS are the fundamental backbone of any code of law and to me, when we start talking about a RIGHT as one that might be moral, but not legal, then the code of laws needs to be discarded and we need to start again. When the backbone and very foundation of our laws is ambivalent, then the laws are going to be impossible to abide by or enforce fairly. It really is just that simple.

Personally, I think that's what Don was referring to in challenging you on this, Blake. Not that you were "wrong", exactly, but that if it's a moral right it MUST be a legal right or else the laws that use that as a foundation are without merit.

Think about it. If one has a moral RIGHT, but the law takes away the legality to exercise it, is that really a just law that should be obeyed?

I think not.

In THIS case, by my understanding of the Constitution, I believe the states DO have the legal right to secede if enough of it's population feels the US Government on a federal level has broken their compact with them. But my opinion is mine and mine alone. I know what I thought, I am interested in others thoughts on the subject.

Not only do they have the legal right, as it was retained by them since the Constitution says nothing about not allowing a state to secede and forthrightly says that those things they didn't take away are retained by the states or the people, but they also have the MORAL RIGHT AND OBLIGATION to secede to keep their people from living under tyranny.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by jstricker: ........ In THIS case, by my understanding of the Constitution, I believe the states DO have the legal right to secede if enough of it's population feels the US Government on a federal level has broken their compact with them. But my opinion is mine and mine alone. I know what I thought, I am interested in others thoughts on the subject. Not only do they have the legal right, as it was retained by them since the Constitution says nothing about not allowing a state to secede and forthrightly says that those things they didn't take away are retained by the states or the people, but they also have the MORAL RIGHT AND OBLIGATION to secede to keep their people from living under tyranny. John Stricker

that last part is a key aspect - not only do they have the right - but the obligation to do so. much of what the opening amendments of the bill of rights is all about. we have seen endless unrest & division in this nation since the iron curtain fell, as the US g'ment got more & more full of itself. the states should be the primary g'ments, and the nat'l g'ment JUST provide the overall security.

It goes beyond that John, and the writers of the Declaration understood it quite well. They intentionally didn't spell out those unalienable rights, because they knew, in doing so, they were very likely to erode over time. Once we begin relying on a written or authoritative code of any kind to ensure our rights, we begin to lose them--by the very nature of that dependancy.

Every bit of the information needed to make a decision or opinion in this regard, was spelled out in your opening post. That's all there is to it--nothing else is relevant. Nothing.

I can assure you, that the 5 writers of the Texas Declaration of Independence, never gave 1 thought to what the Mexican law might say about it--or do to them. They didn't have time--they assembled on March 1, wrote it, signed it, and sent it out the following day for the rest of the delegates to sign. All signed it before sunset on Mar 2, and The Alamo was already under seige for the 9th day. Some interesting words in the opening paragraph:

quote When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression. When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.

those inestimable and inalienable rights

Those words just keep coming up don't they?

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

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I'm not picking on you, Blake, just observing, and I phrased the question so that I COULD see how people picked their answers.

Sooooo.... what you're saying... is that all you old farts think the same and are wrong?

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: Sooooo.... what you're saying... is that all you old farts think the same and are wrong?

You're from NORTH Texas aren't ya........
Watch him John--his real name may be Moses Rose.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: You're from NORTH Texas aren't ya........ Watch him John--his real name may be Moses Rose.

Ouch! hey... it was his inalienable right to not cross that line in the sand!

(for those reading that don't know)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Rose

No, my son. What I'm saying is that all us old farts understand what a right is and you young'un's think someone has to give them to you. Nobody has to give them to you. You have them just because you were born.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by blakeinspace: Sooooo.... what you're saying... is that all you old farts think the same and are wrong?

Consider:
When was the last time the fed govt gave or promised you something----that you didn't already have, or could easily get on your own??

Back to the practical side of this discussion, I just had a thought:
If all you bitter guys could liquidate your assets you could pool them and buy thousands of acres in Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay, or some other place, and start your own Reich country where you make the rules as you see fit.
In poor third world nations, you could live like wealthy barons, in your own 'republic.'
You could sell ethanol, rum, or even bananas to the USA and live like kings.
And we Americans would be spared from your constant bitching and whining about our elected government, who gained office in the last TWO elections..
I know you've thought about it before.
WIN-WIN, eh?
What ya think?

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

I think you completely miss the point.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Back to the practical side of this discussion, I just had a thought: If all you bitter guys could liquidate your assets you could pool them and buy thousands of acres in Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay, or some other place, and start your own Reich country where you make the rules as you see fit. In poor third world nations, you could live like wealthy barons, in your own 'republic.' You could sell ethanol, rum, or even bananas to the USA and live like kings. And we Americans would be spared from your constant bitching and whining about our elected government, who gained office in the last TWO elections.. I know you've thought about it before. WIN-WIN, eh? What ya think?

Who--exactly, are you calling 'bitter guys'?
Same ones you routinely call

quote far right fringe wingnuts

?

quote Originally posted by jstricker: I think you completely miss the point. John Stricker

No, I don't think I missed anything.

Anyway, I only posted the idea as 'food for thought', eh?
I know you've thought about it.
After all, the Bushes, who are very wealthy and powerful, have.
They may be onto something.

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

And, I pretty much live the way you describe now--not quite as extravagant, but close enough for me.

Of course you have.

For one thing, the ability to hold a reasonable conversation without dragging politics and name calling into it.

What is it your missing?

Manners, for another.

Virtually everyone here was having a civil, reasonable conversation. Except you. You have to jump in and start calling people bitter and telling them they should leave the country because they may, or may not, agree with your point of view.

The question was about whether or not something was a fundamental right of the people. If you don't want to participate in that discussion, start your own thread.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: No, I don't think I missed anything. Just 'food for thought', eh?

John, when did YOUR skin get so thin?
After the Civil War/ War Between the States, AND after WW II, people with assets did just as I described.
Apparently, people with wealth and power are doing just that today.

As I said before, it's food for thought.

'Rebels' (secessionists) gotta have a place to run to, don't they?

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

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I just had a thought:

So do dummies.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: If all you bitter guys could ....

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: And we Americans ....

So, when Bush was in office, you were not an American ?

It may be food for thought, but it has nothing to do with the question or your calling people names, now does it?

My skin is not thin. I just fail to understand why it is that YOU, who claim moral superiority over anything or anyone conservative, feels so intently that they must deride and degrade other's questions.

That's food for YOU to think about.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: John, when did YOUR skin get so thin? After the Civil War/ War Between the States, AND after WW II, people with assets did just as I described. Apparently, people with wealth and power are doing just that today. As I said before, it's food for thought. 'Rebels' (secessionists) gotta have a place to run to, don't they?

I think it has a LOT to do with the question at hand.
But since I'm not a "conservative", my opinion doesn't matter.
To you, and to the others who think they 'own' Cliff Pennocks forum.

Just read Cliffw's post from Texas above.


Its bedtime on the East Coast.
Have a ball, guys.

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

You have yet to address the question of whether or not the state has a right to secede from the union. You did, on page one, have one post that said you granted there was nothing prohibiting it, but you never gave your opinion on whether or not it has the right to secede. Instead, you went into a discussion on how the courts would react, or what the currency would be worth.

None of that had anything to do with the question of whether or not a state has the right to secede.

Your being conservative, liberal, atheist, wiccan, black, white, red, or purple means nothing to me, if you had bothered to give an opinion on the question asked. You choose not to do that and instead insist on making this a partisan bitching match. So be it. I'm surprised it made three pages before you'd had enough and had to make it a study in futility instead of contributing meaningfully to the conversation.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I think it has a LOT to do with the question at hand. But since I'm not a "conservative", my opinion dosen't matter. To you, and to the others who think they 'own' Cliffs forum.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: After the Civil War/ War Between the States, AND after WW II, people with assets did just as I described. Apparently, people with wealth and power are doing just that today.

Can you actually think this ?

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: 'Rebels' (secessionists) gotta have a place to run to, don't they?

No.