Scott Lloyd Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Which proves what? Are you refusing to even acknowledge the possibility of a state peacefully leaving the union?I am. The very concept of the dissolution of the Union is illegal and would have to be resisted — by force, if necessary.
Saints Alive Posted November 28, 2012 Author Posted November 28, 2012 I am. The very concept of the dissolution of the Union is illegal and would have to be resisted — by force, if necessary.I'm not talking about all 50 states at once, or even several states at a time. If a remote or exterior state wanted independence, say Alaska, Hawaii, or perhaps Texas, and it was beneficial to the Union, I don't think there would be a big fuss about it.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I'm not talking about all 50 states at once, or even several states at a time. If a remote or exterior state wanted independence, say Alaska, Hawaii, or perhaps Texas, and it was beneficial to the Union, I don't think there would be a big fuss about it.I can't conceive of a scenario where such a thing would be regarded as beneficial to the Union. All this was decided back in the 1860s, when the name "The United States of America" began to be regarded as a singular rather than a plural noun.Secessionists can defect if they want to, but they will have to go elsewhere; they cannot rob the United States of its real estate. Edited November 28, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Stargazer Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 TSS:I disagree, given the right circumstance, I think it is possible for a state to peacefully secede. I can even think of scenarios where it would be beneficial to both the state and the Federal government. To say that the only way is through armed conflict is inaccurate.You know that word, "possible"? I don't think it means what you think it means.Texas v. White. You know, the Supreme Court case that has been bandied about around here over the past few pages? It is says that it is illegal for a state to peacefully secede. The Civil War shows dramatically what happens if a state ever gets it in its head that that is what it is going to do. And I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the US Constitution. Of course it contains a provision for admitting new states. Can you find me any provision at all for a process of releasing a state from the Union? I'll save you the search: there isn't one.You still think its possible? Well hope springs eternal, and I hope pigs will fly. That's just as possible. 1
Saints Alive Posted November 28, 2012 Author Posted November 28, 2012 Laws and situations change. Some thought it would be impossible to end salvery but look where we are now. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Laws and situations change. Some thought it would be impossible to end salvery but look where we are now.Slavery was an abominable institution that should have been abolished; "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" is not.
thesometimesaint Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 Which proves what? Are you refusing to even acknowledge the possibility of a state peacefully leaving the union?That none has ever been in successful leaving the union. Heck we fought a bloody Civil War with more American killed than all other wars the US has ever fought in.
Stargazer Posted November 28, 2012 Posted November 28, 2012 That none has ever been in successful leaving the union. Heck we fought a bloody Civil War with more American killed than all other wars the US has ever fought in.Look, he still wants to hold out the possibility, for whatever reason. I say let him have his fantasy. If settled case law and the Constitution does not move him, then nothing will.
Calm Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I'm not talking about all 50 states at once, or even several states at a time. If a remote or exterior state wanted independence, say Alaska, Hawaii, or perhaps Texas, and it was beneficial to the Union, I don't think there would be a big fuss about it.I think there might be a concern about the precedent it would set. Even if in that case there was a benefit to all concern to secede, if they allowed it in that case, how could it be denied in a case where it was detrimental to the federal state?
bluebell Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 I think there might be a concern about the precedent it would set. Even if in that case there was a benefit to all concern to secede, if they allowed it in that case, how could it be denied in a case where it was detrimental to the federal state?This is why i don't believe the Federal government would EVER allow a state to secceed. From that point on, anytime any state had an issue, they would want to leave and it would end up being a huge disaster.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 bluebell:That issue was closely tied to the Nullification Crises of the 1830's. No state has the legal authority to ignore or defy Federal Law.
bluebell Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 bluebell:That issue was closely tied to the Nullification Crises of the 1830's. No state has the legal authority to ignore or defy Federal Law.States have been trying to nullify laws since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up with the theory, and continued right on past the Civil War. Some keep trying even in this day and age. I know Montana still occassionally attempts to nullify a federal law. Regardless of what different Supreme Courts have said about it, I don't think we've seen the last attempt by states and probably won't unless the constitution is ammended.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2012 Posted November 29, 2012 Persistence sometimes pay's off. But I won't hold my breath until it happens.
Nathair/|\ Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I want to secede, but I don't know what state I'm in.--Bart Simpson
William Schryver Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Background: Over 1 million Americans in all 50states have signed succession petitions on the white house's website.Question: Does the 12th AofF preclude Mormons from signing these petitions in good conscious?Probably someone else has already corrected you (although it didn't happen on the whole first page of replies), but it's not "succession," it's secession.
DavidB Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 States have been trying to nullify laws since Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came up with the theory, and continued right on past the Civil War. Some keep trying even in this day and age. I know Montana still occassionally attempts to nullify a federal law. Regardless of what different Supreme Courts have said about it, I don't think we've seen the last attempt by states and probably won't unless the constitution is ammended.Unfortunately for States, the fed will just vomit " commerce clause".
TAO Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 You know that word, "possible"? I don't think it means what you think it means.Texas v. White. You know, the Supreme Court case that has been bandied about around here over the past few pages? It is says that it is illegal for a state to peacefully secede. The Civil War shows dramatically what happens if a state ever gets it in its head that that is what it is going to do. And I am sure you are at least passingly familiar with the US Constitution. Of course it contains a provision for admitting new states. Can you find me any provision at all for a process of releasing a state from the Union? I'll save you the search: there isn't one.You still think its possible? Well hope springs eternal, and I hope pigs will fly. That's just as possible.Stargazer, you don't need something to be in the constitution for it to be allowed to happen. I agree, it's incredibly unlikely, but it doesn't need to be there. There's been lots of things that weren't in the constitution, which came to pass all the same.
TAO Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 All that is besides point, and just historical fact. Unsuccessful Revolutions/secessions are a dime a dozen. The ones we tend to remember are the ones that are successful. My main point is that there is no provision in the US Constitution for secession. The only way is through armed conflict, and every government has the right to protect itself.You wouldn't need a provision in the Constitution for secession, just as you wouldn't need a provision for many other things in the Constitution that are passed into laws anyways.
Nathair/|\ Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Hey, guys, I didn't zombify this thread for it to be taken seriously.
TAO Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 Ah! It's back from the dead! Sorry, I should have read the dates =p.
Saints Alive Posted December 18, 2012 Author Posted December 18, 2012 Gosh and I thought it had been locked a long time ago.
thesometimesaint Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 TAO:The USSC, and our history disagrees. Under the Articles of Confederation it would have been possible, but through the Federalism written into the Constitution it wasn't. The US Civil War and subsequent amendments firmly established the concept that individual States had no legal right to leave once admitted to the Union.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
TAO Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) TAO:The USSC, and our history disagrees. Under the Articles of Confederation it would have been possible, but through the Federalism written into the Constitution it wasn't. The US Civil War and subsequent amendments firmly established the concept that individual States had no legal right to leave once admitted to the Union.http://en.wikipedia....wiki/FederalismThat would be partially correct. Through precedent, the states have no right, but it is completely unwritten. Much like other things we value are unwritten. Everything that is run through the elastic clause, for instance, has the same problems that you have with secession. They are powers the government has assumed without it being written under the idea that they are necessary and proper. Edited December 18, 2012 by TAO 1
Stargazer Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 Stargazer, you don't need something to be in the constitution for it to be allowed to happen. I agree, it's incredibly unlikely, but it doesn't need to be there. There's been lots of things that weren't in the constitution, which came to pass all the same.Yes, I know. There is nothing about having oatmeal for breakfast, either, one way or another. Breakfast is not a subject of the Constitution.But admission of states to the Union is covered, so it is a subject of the Constitution. And since there is no provision for the exit of a state, then the Constitution cannot be used to exit the Union. In short, there is no legal way to do so, whether by act of state legislation or by petition of state citizens. Texas is stuck there whether it likes it or not. There is onlly an illegal way to leave the Union, one that was tried in 1861 and that did not succeed. Legal exit from the Union would require the Constitution to be amended to provide a way to exit. Considering how frequently the Constitution has been amended in 200+ years, good luck with that. It ain't gonna happen, and that is why it is impossible. The only way to leave the Union is to fight the Union and WIN. There is no state of the Union strong enough to do this, nor is there any conceivable bloc of states strong enough.When the song says "I fought the law and the law won", this applies to secession as well.
TAO Posted December 19, 2012 Posted December 19, 2012 But admission of states to the Union is covered, so it is a subject of the Constitution. And since there is no provision for the exit of a state, then the Constitution cannot be used to exit the Union.This would be correct.In short, there is no legal way to do so, whether by act of state legislation or by petition of state citizens. Texas is stuck there whether it likes it or not. There is onlly an illegal way to leave the Union, one that was tried in 1861 and that did not succeed.This is incorrect. As I pointed out, something doesn't need to be in the Constitution to be legal. What you mean is that legal attempts will likely not be successful (for example, by legislation at the federal level), so thus, states will only result to illegal means.Legal exit from the Union would require the Constitution to be amended to provide a way to exit.Says whom? As you pointed out, we don't need a legal way to eat oatmeal.Considering how frequently the Constitution has been amended in 200+ years, good luck with that. It ain't gonna happen, and that is why it is impossible. The only way to leave the Union is to fight the Union and WIN. There is no state of the Union strong enough to do this, nor is there any conceivable bloc of states strong enough.That is probably true.
Recommended Posts