12Th Aoff And State Succession Petitions?

[Saints Alive]

You're obviously much more charitable than me. Hey, you should be a Democrat!

You have obviously never used iOS software to type anything. I can spell something right and it will still change the word.

[Nathair/|\]

My number one political principle is "What would Captain Moroni do?" In this case, I'm not sure, but he did threaten to topple Pahoran's government when he thought they weren't doing their duty.

[bluebell]

Glad it wasn't just human error.

I've seen other mistakes on this thread as well: "session" and "cessation" instead of secession. I wonder if they are attributable to spell check as well.

I would like to propose a new rule for the Board. If you use the wrong word because you were too lazy or in too much of a hurry to use a dictionary, and someone calls you on it, rather than blaming it on spell check or fat fingers, or some other such excuse, how about we just own up to our mistake, thank the person for pointing it out, and move on? This goes for TSS as well as myself. Are we so proud as to be unable to admit when we make a mistake?

What the heck does it matter?!?

How about, if you feel you must correct someone else's grammar or punctionation, then do it as a kindness and let it rest. Don't then demand that the person you have corrected respond in the manner that you dictate they must or else.

And especially don't imply they are lying if you don't like their response-how much more petty can make ourselves look if we get contentious and judgmental over grammar on a message board?

Sorry for the thread jack but come on...

[Scott Lloyd]

You're obviously much more charitable than me. Hey, you should be a Democrat!

It's just that I've spent enough time at a computer keyboard to know the perils of spell check and auto correct.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think there is anything un-Mormon to sign such a petition. During the 1857 Utah War, Brigham Young threatened that the Utah Territory would secede and establish an independent theocracy. But it was not a state at the time.

But especially today, any petition for the secession of a state is absolutely futile. That a state has no right to secede from the union was decidedly settled during the Civil War. In addition, there is no power granted in the Constitution allowing the federal government to "release" a state from the union.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Mark Beesley]

You have obviously never used iOS software to type anything. I can spell something right and it will still change the word.

My computer is a Mac Mini running Mountain Lion, and I use a 2nd Generation iPad and an iPhone 5, so there!

[Tacenda]

I don't think there is anything un-Mormon to sign such a petition. During the 1857 Utah War, Brigham Young threatened that the Utah Territory would secede and establish an independent theocracy. But it was not a state at the time.

But especially today, any petition for the secession of a state is absolutely futile. That a state has no right to secede from the union was decidedly settled during the Civil War. In addition, there is no power granted in the Constitution allowing the federal government to "release" a state from the union.

Here is an article/news broadcast concerning the petition in Utah.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22958172

[Tacenda]

Not to be politcal or anything, is there a cure for the state of the union? Is there a way out or are we headed for disaster? Would it even be fair for states to secede, shouldn't they help the sinking ship? I think we need to stop the unneeded programs and slim it down to the barest of necessities for us to have a chance at putting the deficit to a zero.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[Nathair/|\]

Not to be politcal or anything, is their a cure for the state of the union? Is there a way out or are we headed for disaster? Would it even be fair for states to secede, shouldn't they help the sinking ship? I think we need to stop the unneeded programs and slim it down to the barest of necessities for us to have a chance at putting the deficit to a zero.

The only solution I can see is to proclaim the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Cobalt-70]

...The Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit action by the federal government, not the state governments....

Yes, but the 14th Amendment changed that.

...According to the 10th Amendment,the states *absolutely* had the right to secede. Secession was not a power given to the federal government and no state therefore each state may decide for itself to prohibit secession or to allow it. What ultimately decided the "fate" of secession was the force of arms. Though by placing the nail in secession's coffin also launched a significant blow to the Tenth Amendment. It has been only after the Civil War that significant belief formed that the federal government may interfere in a state's decision.

Abraham Lincoln was not wrong. States never had the right to secede, because their admission to the union was not a unilateral decision by the state. Under the Constitution, a state is only admitted by the permission of Congress. Once admitted, there becomes a compact between the state and the Union. It is effectively a contract--the state gives up some of its sovereignty, while the federal government provides military protection, currency, and every other service that the federal government provides. Like any mutual compact, one side is not simply free to dissolve it unilaterally. The Constitution provides the federal government with no power to agree with a state to dissolve this contract, so it is permanent and indissoluble once formed.

Now that we have the 14th amendment, the issue of state secession is even more impossible. The 14th Amendment states that state citizens are citizens of the United States, and that states can take no action that abridges their privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. Secession from the union would be such an action.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Mark Beesley]

My number one political principle is "What would Captain Moroni do?" In this case, I'm not sure, but he did threaten to topple Pahoran's government when he thought they weren't doing their duty.

And yet what do we learn? Captain Moroni was wrong in laying the blame at the feet of Pahoran. Pahoran was not witholding assistance, but was hindered by other factions. (Sound familiar?) Those were the kingmen, the prosperous class, who wanted to withhold their substance from the support of the government. Captain Moroni also castigated those who dissented from the country and had seemingly wanted to form their own government.

So what would Captain Moroni do? He would probably do as TSS suggested, and arrest those people signing these petitions to secede from the Union, and tell the 1 percent that they need pay higher taxes. Read Chapters 60 and 61 of Alma very carefully. And he would likely scold both the Democrats and the Republicans for failing to compromise for the good of all the people.

[TAO]

Cobalt, contracts are only there if you honor them. Whether there is a contract or not has nothing to do with whether a state will seceed or will not. If a state feels it's intrests are being jeopordized enough, and it feel it can get away with it, it'll seceed regardless. Secession isn't something that's based in law; it's based in personal decision making.

With the way things are right now, it will be very unlikely a state will ever suceed, unless the government just lets it go.

Edited November 15, 2012 by TAO

[Mark Beesley]

Yes, but the 14th Amendment changed that.

Abraham Lincoln was not wrong. States never had the right to secede, because their admission to the union was not a unilateral decision by the state. Under the Constitution, a state is only admitted by the permission of Congress. Once admitted, there becomes a compact between the state and the Union. It is effectively a contract--the state gives up some of its sovereignty, while the federal government provides military protection, currency, and every other service that the federal government provides. Like any mutual compact, one side is not simply free to dissolve it unilaterally. The Constitution provides the federal government with no power to agree with a state to dissolve this contract, so it is permanent and indissoluble once formed.

Now that we have the 14th amendment, the issue of state secession is even more impossible. The 14th Amendment states that state citizens are citizens of the United States, and that states can take no action that abridges their privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. Secession from the union would be such an action.

Good post.

[TAO]

And yet what do we learn? Captain Moroni was wrong in laying the blame at the feet of Pahoran. Pahoran was not witholding assistance, but was hindered by other factions. (Sound familiar?) Those were the kingmen, the prosperous class, who wanted to withhold their substance from the support of the government. Captain Moroni also castigated those who dissented from the country and had seemingly wanted to form their own government.

What if we didn't look at Captain Moroni but instead looked at the people of Limhi. The Book of Mormons points to cases where both people left, and didn't leave, and shows good things happened as long as the people listened to God in their choice.

So what would Captain Moroni do? He would probably do as TSS suggested, and arrest those people signing these petitions to secede from the Union, and tell the 1 percent that they need pay higher taxes. Read Chapters 60 and 61 of Alma very carefully. And he would likely scold both the Democrats and the Republicans for failing to compromise for the good of all the people.

He'd also criticize other people for supporting a government which creates laws implimenting immorality, however.

I have a feeling Captain Moroni would not have criticisms for both parties indeed.

Edited November 15, 2012 by TAO

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt, contracts are only there if you honor them. Whether there is a contract or not has nothing to do with whether a state will seceed or will not. If a state feels it's intrests are being jeopordized enough, and it feel it can get away with it, it'll seceed regardless. Secession isn't something that's based in law; it's based in personal decision making.

With the way things are right now, it will be very unlikely a state will ever suceed, unless the government just lets it go.

Yes, a state might decide to illegally seceed. That's what happened in the Civil War. But it didn't work out well for these states, as history attests.

[TAO]

Yes, a state might decide to illegally seceed. That's what happened in the Civil War. But it didn't work out well for these states, as history attests.

Definately. But look at the Revolutionary War. That was no less illegal than the Civil War, and yet here we are, a seperate nation.

Conflicts can go either way. Right now, the advantage is heavily in the hands of the federal government.

[Darren10]

The date of the decision is irrelevant. The Tenth Amendment, under which you claimed the states had the "absolute" right to secede from the nation, was not repealed or amended between 1791 and 1869. The decision of the Supreme Court in 1869 was constrained, if at all, by the Tenth Amendment. (Incidentally, the Tenth Amendment was not included in the original Constitution which purports to "establish a more perfect Union.) So, unless you can produce a court opinion prior to the Civil War which supports the notion that a state had the "absolute" right to secede after it had joined the Union by ratifying the Constitution, then I suggest you produce it. Otherwise, such a statement is pure poppycock.

(Your analysis of the Tenth Amendment and what it means is simplistic at best. In even a cursory reading of the Constitution, one finds that in Article One Congress is granted the power to enact all laws that are necessary and proper for executing the powers granted by the Constitution, meaning that power not expressly granted in the Constitution to the federal government may be implied under the necessary and proper clause. That has been the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment since the early days of the Republic. See McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U. S. 316 (1819).)

First off, I need clarification on the 10th Amendment not being part of the original Constitution.

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/bill_of_rights.shtml

The Bill of Rights were merely written assurances of the intent of the Constitution. Their passage was promised upon ratification and so they were. This helped to assure the sates against federal dominance. Even without the 10th Amendment, it was understood that the states stood sovereign to the federal government. Our government was founded on that very federalist principle.

Also, what I said was that "According to the 10th Amendment,the states *absolutely* had the right to secede" and I stand by that and everything else I said regardless of what any court has ruled.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think there is anything un-Mormon to sign such a petition. During the 1857 Utah War, Brigham Young threatened that the Utah Territory would secede and establish an independent theocracy. But it was not a state at the time.

Not only that, but the Mormons had been effectively driven out of the then-existing United States with the acquiescence of the federal government. And, as you point out, the Civil War had not yet occurred to establish the illegality of secession.

[bluebell]

Yes, but the 14th Amendment changed that.

Abraham Lincoln was not wrong. States never had the right to secede, because their admission to the union was not a unilateral decision by the state. Under the Constitution, a state is only admitted by the permission of Congress. Once admitted, there becomes a compact between the state and the Union. It is effectively a contract--the state gives up some of its sovereignty, while the federal government provides military protection, currency, and every other service that the federal government provides. Like any mutual compact, one side is not simply free to dissolve it unilaterally. The Constitution provides the federal government with no power to agree with a state to dissolve this contract, so it is permanent and indissoluble once formed.

Now that we have the 14th amendment, the issue of state secession is even more impossible. The 14th Amendment states that state citizens are citizens of the United States, and that states can take no action that abridges their privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. Secession from the union would be such an action.

For many years after the Constitution was created and ratified, states had their own currency and their own militaries (or militias) The federal government actually provided very little of what we are used to them providing today.

Before the civil war, when people spoke of the U.S., they used the words "the United States are...." One of the legacies of the Civil War was to create a strong federal government and create a single entity where there had been plural before. It became "the United States is..."

The contract that states entered into to get into the union before the civil war, was much different after. It's important to recognize how much this country and the way the federal government acts, has changed over our history.

[Mark Beesley]

First off, I need clarification on the 10th Amendment not being part of the original Constitution.

Sure, here you go.

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789. The first ten constitutional amendments ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791 are known as the Bill of Rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

The term amendment kind of means it wasn't part of the original . . .

Also, what I said was that "According to the 10th Amendment,the states *absolutely* had the right to secede" and I stand by that and everything else I said regardless of what any court has ruled.

So, it's an opinion without any legal or historical support. Ok.

[Mark Beesley]

Not only that, but the Mormons had been effectively driven out of the then-existing United States with the acquiescence of the federal government. And, as you point out, the Civil War had not yet occurred to establish the illegality of secession.

I may be a little deficient on my knowledge of early LDS history. How did the federal government acquiesce in the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo?

Thanks.

[Saints Alive]

I may be a little deficient on my knowledge of early LDS history. How did the federal government acquiesce in the expulsion of the Saints from Nauvoo?

Thanks.

They failed to offer assistance or defend the rights of it's citizens. The only aid given was the opportunity to enlist in the Army.

[Mark Beesley]

They failed to offer assistance or defend the rights of it's citizens. The only aid given was the opportunity to enlist in the Army.

What correspondence flowed between the Saints and any federal officials alerting the feds that the Saints were being expelled from Illinois? I know Joseph Smith travelled to Washington to seek redress for the wrongs in MIssouri, but I am unaware of any petitions to Washington after Joseph was murdered seeking protection from the Illinois mobs.

[Deborah]

Of course the point of the secession movement is to protest a government whose purpose seems to negate the Constitution and who see our nation becoming just like everyone else, impoverished, debt-ridden and with a people ever more dependent on Big Brother, or in this case Uncle Sam. People feel helpless as they see the dwindling of rights and the lay-offs that are imminent and their paychecks being depleted with higher taxes and rising costs. I feel the frustration but where else can we go. This is the last great nation on earth and it's greatness is becoming diminished.

I didn't make the decisions to get us as a nation in debt. I didn't make the decision to shackle the hands of those who can create jobs. Yet, I and my grand-children will pay the price for those unthinking and careless people who did.

[Darren10]

And yet what do we learn? Captain Moroni was wrong in laying the blame at the feet of Pahoran. Pahoran was not witholding assistance, but was hindered by other factions. (Sound familiar?) Those were the kingmen, the prosperous class, who wanted to withhold their substance from the support of the government. Captain Moroni also castigated those who dissented from the country and had seemingly wanted to form their own government.

So what would Captain Moroni do? He would probably do as TSS suggested, and arrest those people signing these petitions to secede from the Union, and tell the 1 percent that they need pay higher taxes. Read Chapters 60 and 61 of Alma very carefully. And he would likely scold both the Democrats and the Republicans for failing to compromise for the good of all the people.

He only went up against those who too, up arms against the nation, not voice their desire to form their own government. During a time of war, you're correct in that he militarily resisted factions from siding with the Lamanites and went up upon those who deliberately thwarted assistance to the troops. There was no armed solution by Captain Moroni against those who merely voiced their decent.