|
Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states like in
"Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the "red" zone.
Is talking secession illegal?
Patriotism is supporting your country all
the time and the government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
|
| |
| |
veteran wrote:
Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
"red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
Patriotism is supporting your country all
the time and the government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
|
| |
| |
Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states like in
"Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the "red" zone.
Is talking secession illegal?
Whether secession is legal or illegal is a long debate. But your
question seems to be whether it's legal to talk about it and
advocate it. Talking about and advocating secession are legal.
It was seriously advocated by the governor or Alaska ten or
fifteen years ago. Quebec has hade more than one ballot
proposition on the topic. When Hawaii was long overdue to became
a state, they forced the issue by telling congress to either get
it done or they were leaving. Talk and advocate all you want.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
veteran wrote:
Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
Viva la Republica de Tejas!
jt
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs <jwtibbs@earthlink.net> wrote:
: > veteran wrote:
: > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: >
: > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: >
: Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: Viva la Republica de Tejas!
That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs <jwtibbs@earthlink.net> wrote:
: > veteran wrote:
: > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: >
: > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: >
: Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: Viva la Republica de Tejas!
That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
The Supreme Court does not make law.
So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You know it is not
in there, so don't even try.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
|
| |
| |
Dana wrote:
"Frank Pittel" <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
message news:b5WdneO4EcIGwRDcRVn-rA@giganews.com...
The Supreme Court does not make law.
Yep, it interprets existing law.
So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession.
Show us where in the Constitution is says convicted
Felons cannot possess firearms.
You know it is not in there, so don't even try.
Ibid.
|
| |
| |
Dana wrote:
Yep, it interprets existing law.
That is not making law.
|
| |
| |
The Supreme Court does not make law.
So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You know it is
not
in there, so don't even try.
We fought a war to determine whether it is or not. Jefferson himself, author
of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, later arrested former vice
president Aaron Burr for fomenting rebellion in the west.
I suggest that the argument transcends whether or not it is "in" the
constitution. It can be argued that by ratifying the constitution, the
states agreed to become permanent members of the union and to only to use
constitutional means to modify the nature of that union.
|
| |
| |
We fought a war to determine whether it is or not.
And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered the union
on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered the
union
on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
history says different. Was tried once and you know the result
personally, I'd like to see the states re-boundaried, based on social,
economic, political bases. Or we could just pack all the liberals into the
states that border Canada, and leave the warmer places to ourselves ;)
Sau, why is it you're talking secession now? cuz you lost an election?
sheesh!
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
history says different.
No, history says no such thing.
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
No, history says no such thing.
Yoo hoo, the Civil War.... The War of Yankee Agression..... the War of Blood
for Cotton.......
Not to mention numerous times federal troops have been dispatched to put
down "rebellions"
You need to study more.
|
| |
| |
Dana wrote:
That is not making law.
Some really ignorant and stupid people believe it is.
So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession.
You know it is not in there, so don't even try.
--
"I don't see any way of winning" [in Vietnam]
-- President Lyndon Johnson privately to
Defense Secretary McNamara 1965
"America wins the wars that she undertakes.
Make no mistake about it!"
-- President Lyndon Johnson public speech
1965 re: Vietnam War
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
Yoo hoo, the Civil War.... The War of Yankee Agression..... the War of
Blood
for Cotton.......
As every one knows the Civil War was caused by the north imposing unfair
Tarifs on the south, forcing the south to leave the union and pursue it's
own course of action.
The issue on weather secession is Constitutional was never an issue, as it
was the southern states left the union.
After the war there was never an Amendment or other treaty/law that actually
made secession unconstitutional.
So today the states are still a part of the union on a voluntary basis.
While in today's world it would be kind of silly to leave the union, there
is nothing in place preventing a state from voting itself out of the union
with the consent of the people in the state in question.
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican Dana <%
@losers@#.com> wrote:
: >
: > >> In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
: wrote:
: > >>
: > >> : > veteran wrote:
: > >> : > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: > >> : > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: > >> : > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: > >> : >
: > >> : > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: > >> : > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: > >> : >
: > >> : Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: > >> : Viva la Republica de Tejas!
: > >>
: > >> That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
: > >
: > > The Supreme Court does not make law.
: > > So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You know it is
: > > not
: > > in there, so don't even try.
: >
: > We fought a war to determine whether it is or not.
: And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered the union
: on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
Once a state joins the Union it can't leave. Were does it say in the constitution
that a state can suceed?? The reality is that the Supreme Court has already ruled
that states can't leave.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican At Last <zepp@isadumbdumb.com> wrote:
: "Dana" <%
: >>
: >> "Dana" <%
: >> >>
: >> >> >> In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
: >> > wrote:
: >> >> >>
: >> >> >> : > veteran wrote:
: >> >> >> : > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: >> >> >> : > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: >> >> >> : > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: >> >> >> : >
: >> >> >> : > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: >> >> >> : > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: >> >> >> : >
: >> >> >> : Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: >> >> >> : Viva la Republica de Tejas!
: >> >> >>
: >> >> >> That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
: >> >> >
: >> >> > The Supreme Court does not make law.
: >> >> > So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You know
: >> >> > it
: >> >> > is
: >> >> > not
: >> >> > in there, so don't even try.
: >> >>
: >> >> We fought a war to determine whether it is or not.
: >> >
: >> > And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered the
: >> > union
: >> > on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
: >>
: >> history says different.
: >
: > No, history says no such thing.
: Yoo hoo, the Civil War.... The War of Yankee Agression..... the War of Blood
: for Cotton.......
Just as importantly after the war was a case was brought before the supreme court and
the court decided that once a statejoins the union it can't suceed.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican Dana <%
@losers@#.com> wrote:
: >
: > >> In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
: wrote:
: > >>
: > >> : > veteran wrote:
: > >> : > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: > >> : > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: > >> : > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: > >> : >
: > >> : > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: > >> : > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: > >> : >
: > >> : Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: > >> : Viva la Republica de Tejas!
: > >>
: > >> That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
: > >
: > > The Supreme Court does not make law.
: > > So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You know
it is
: > > not
: > > in there, so don't even try.
: >
: > We fought a war to determine whether it is or not.
: And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered the
union
: on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
Once a state joins the Union it can't leave.
It sure can. If the people of a state decide to leave the union, they sure
can.
Were does it say in the constitution
that a state can suceed??
That is the point. The Constitution in no way forces a state to stay in the
union.
The reality is that the Supreme Court has already ruled
that states can't leave.
The Supreme Court does not make law. Hence bringing the Supreme Court into
this is irrevelant.
--
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican At Last <zepp@isadumbdumb.com> wrote:
: "Dana" <%
: >>
: >> "Dana" <%
: >> >>
: >> >> >> In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs
<jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
: >> > wrote:
: >> >> >>
: >> >> >> : > veteran wrote:
: >> >> >> : > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: >> >> >> : > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: >> >> >> : > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: >> >> >> : >
: >> >> >> : > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: >> >> >> : > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: >> >> >> : >
: >> >> >> : Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: >> >> >> : Viva la Republica de Tejas!
: >> >> >>
: >> >> >> That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
: >> >> >
: >> >> > The Supreme Court does not make law.
: >> >> > So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You
know
: >> >> > it
: >> >> > is
: >> >> > not
: >> >> > in there, so don't even try.
: >> >>
: >> >> We fought a war to determine whether it is or not.
: >> >
: >> > And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered
the
: >> > union
: >> > on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
: >>
: >> history says different.
: >
: > No, history says no such thing.
: Yoo hoo, the Civil War.... The War of Yankee Agression..... the War of
Blood
: for Cotton.......
Just as importantly after the war was a case was brought before the
supreme court and
the court decided that once a statejoins the union it can't suceed.
The Supreme Court cannot make law, there is no law or no provision in the
Constitution that forces states to stay in the union.
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
<jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
know
the
Blood
supreme court and
The Supreme Court cannot make law, there is no law or no provision in the
Constitution that forces states to stay in the union.
There's no provision in the constitution for departments of Education,
Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, etc. Not a
one.
Are you going to rant and rave when we dismantle those useless
bureaucracies?
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
it is
union
It sure can. If the people of a state decide to leave the union, they sure
can.
That is the point. The Constitution in no way forces a state to stay in
the
union.
The Supreme Court does not make law. Hence bringing the Supreme Court into
this is irrevelant.
What makes you think the population of any state even WANTS to secede, by
the way? I know some of the demolib nutcases are ranting about it, but fact
is that it ain't gonna happen anyway. Despite what you sore loser nutzis
think.
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
Are you going to rant and rave when we dismantle those useless
bureaucracies?
Nope, not at all, because clearly those are state concerns and not federal
issues, except for NIH, and CDC, FAA.
But then this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you want start
a new topic about the Constitutionality of those departments you listed.
|
| |
| |
Frank Pittel wrote:
That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
While since the scummy Warren Court we have had leftist judicial
activism (and the associated toxic waste such as Bork hatred), today's
lefties have company in activist court rulings in the past, such as
the most famous equivalent of Roe v. Wade: the Dred Scott decision. A
ruling of illegality of secession would also be an illegitimate
activist ruling. Secession and self-determination were rights
reserved to the states and localities. The most intelligent
interpretation of the Civil War, which is provided by only a few of
us, acknowledges that the legitimate right of the southern states to
secede after the 1860 election lost only to two things: overwhelming
force and the motive behind it, Manifest Destiny.
Note that I used past tense, in saying that these "were" rights.
The legal case can be made, not by activist scum but by respectable
individuals, that as part of the Fourteenth Amendment secession after
the passage of that amendment was illegal, because such an act would
deprive people of their federal as well as state citizenship rights.
(Specific clauses of post-Civil-War amendments referring to
punishment or non-recognition of Confederate acts and claims do not of
themselves make secession illegal, only imply clearly that such an act
was viewed as bad and wrong.)
Dave Simpson
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
What makes you think the population of any state even WANTS to secede,
We are talking about what if's. There are quite a few rabid posters here who
think the blue states should secede, which is what bought about this
discussion. And there are quite a few people on the right who would love to
see the leftists secede anyway.
by
the way? I know some of the demolib nutcases are ranting about it, but
fact
is that it ain't gonna happen anyway.
Not just demolib nutcases, you also have a fair amount of people on the
right who wish they would, I myself would be in this group, as I see leftist
ideology as being incompatible with freedom and liberty.
But we both are realists and we probably agree that it will not happen any
time soon. I will say that eventually we will see America split because of
leftist ideology and their drive towards socialism.
Despite what you sore loser nutzis
think.
Heck I am just tickled with the results of the recent elections, it suits me
just fine. Now had Kerry won, yes I would probably be a sore loser right
about now.
|
| |
| |
Dave Simpson wrote:
Frank Pittel wrote:
While since the scummy Warren Court we have had leftist judicial
activism (and the associated toxic waste such as Bork hatred), today's
lefties have company in activist court rulings in the past, such as
the most famous equivalent of Roe v. Wade: the Dred Scott decision. A
ruling of illegality of secession would also be an illegitimate
activist ruling. Secession and self-determination were rights
reserved to the states and localities. The most intelligent
interpretation of the Civil War, which is provided by only a few of
us, acknowledges that the legitimate right of the southern states to
secede after the 1860 election lost only to two things: overwhelming
force and the motive behind it, Manifest Destiny.
Bet you miss those good old days of school segregation.
Note that I used past tense, in saying that these "were" rights.
The legal case can be made, not by activist scum but by respectable
individuals, that as part of the Fourteenth Amendment secession after
the passage of that amendment was illegal, because such an act would
deprive people of their federal as well as state citizenship rights.
(Specific clauses of post-Civil-War amendments referring to
punishment or non-recognition of Confederate acts and claims do not of
themselves make secession illegal, only imply clearly that such an act
was viewed as bad and wrong.)
Dave Simpson
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
|
| |
| |
Dave Simpson wrote:
Bet you miss those good old days of school segregation.
|
| |
| |
In alt.politics.usa.republican Dana <%
@losers@#.com> wrote:
: > In alt.politics.usa.republican At Last <zepp@isadumbdumb.com> wrote:
: >
: > : "Dana" <%
: > : >>
: > : >> "Dana" <%
: > : >> >>
: > : >> >> >> In alt.politics.usa.republican John Tibbs
: <jwtibbs@earthlink.net>
: > : >> > wrote:
: > : >> >> >>
: > : >> >> >> : > veteran wrote:
: > : >> >> >> : > > Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states
: > : >> >> >> : > > like in "Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the
: > : >> >> >> : > > "red" zone. Is talking secession illegal?
: > : >> >> >> : >
: > : >> >> >> : > Only Texas reserved the right to secede from the Union,
: > : >> >> >> : > perhaps we should force them to exercise that option.
: > : >> >> >> : >
: > : >> >> >> : Can you show where cesession is banned by the constitution?
: > : >> >> >> : Viva la Republica de Tejas!
: > : >> >> >>
: > : >> >> >> That was decided by the supreme court after the civil war.
: > : >> >> >
: > : >> >> > The Supreme Court does not make law.
: > : >> >> > So again, show us where the Constitution bans secession. You
: know
: > : >> >> > it
: > : >> >> > is
: > : >> >> > not
: > : >> >> > in there, so don't even try.
: > : >> >>
: > : >> >> We fought a war to determine whether it is or not.
: > : >> >
: > : >> > And the war did not answer the question. Since the states entered
: the
: > : >> > union
: > : >> > on a voluntary basis, thy can also leave if they so desire.
: > : >>
: > : >> history says different.
: > : >
: > : > No, history says no such thing.
: >
: > : Yoo hoo, the Civil War.... The War of Yankee Agression..... the War of
: Blood
: > : for Cotton.......
: >
: > Just as importantly after the war was a case was brought before the
: supreme court and
: > the court decided that once a statejoins the union it can't suceed.
: The Supreme Court cannot make law, there is no law or no provision in the
: Constitution that forces states to stay in the union.
Give it up you're wrong. The civil war was fought when some state in the south
decided to secede from the union. Like it or not the Supreme Court has decided that
it's unconstitutional for a state to secede from the union. End of conversation!
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com
|
| |
| |
veteran wrote:
Now that some are looking to move to Canada, some states like in
"Ecotopia" might consider leaving the rest of the "red" zone.
Is talking secession illegal?
Patriotism is supporting your country all
the time and the government when it deserves it.
-Mark Twain
It's only illegal to seceed from a country if you don't get away with
it. If you and your people get away with it you become the government
of the new country. If you don't you all get hung as traitors.
That's why George Washington & co. were the founding fathers of this
country instead of hung as rebel traitors of the British Empire.
Now, if you declare a Civil War exists and you lose you might then be
able to get out of it with your skin by negotiating good terms for
surrender but if you're caught during the war you'll spend the duration
in a military prison if you're not hanged as a spy or sahoteur.
|
| |
| |
"Dana" <%
We are talking about what if's. There are quite a few rabid posters here
who
think the blue states should secede, which is what bought about this
discussion. And there are quite a few people on the right who would love
to
see the leftists secede anyway.
by
fact
Not just demolib nutcases, you also have a fair amount of people on the
right who wish they would, I myself would be in this group, as I see
leftist
ideology as being incompatible with freedom and liberty.
But we both are realists and we probably agree that it will not happen any
time soon. I will say that eventually we will see America split because of
leftist ideology and their drive towards socialism.
Despite what you sore loser nutzis
Heck I am just tickled with the results of the recent elections, it suits
me
just fine. Now had Kerry won, yes I would probably be a sore loser right
about now.
My apologies, sir. Having seen too many anti American nutcase rants on this
topic, I mistook you.
|
| |
| |
A must read for Democrats:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/2004b/Staff110804Conversation.htm
|
| |
| |
George Grapman
Bet you miss those good old days of school segregation.
Nope. You are illogical, and wrong, again.
Why do lefties say such stupid things so often? I know there has to
be a lower half of the population, by definition, but that doesn't
excuse anything and everything they say and do.
(* sigh *)
Dave Simpson
|
| |
| |
Frank Pittel wrote:
Once a state joins the Union it can't leave. Were does it say in the
constitution that a state can suceed??
You reveal ignorance of constitutional federalism.
If it doesn't say they cannot, then it means obviously that they
can; all rights not given to the federal government or prohibited to
the states are reserved to the states and localities.
Typical liberals believe the "new" (fake) constitutional federalism
that arose in the early twentieth century: if it doesn't say the feds
cannot do something, the feds therefore can do it if they want -- or
if enough of the people like it or want it. Implicit in that is
misconstruction of residual sovereignty and restrictions on the states
and localities (along with fake federal supremacy) that is not there.
Dave Simpson
|
| |
| |
On 8 Nov 2004 14:14:52 -0800, david_l_simpson@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson)
wrote:
George Grapman
Nope. You are illogical, and wrong, again.
Why do lefties say such stupid things so often? I know there has to
be a lower half of the population, by definition, but that doesn't
excuse anything and everything they say and do.
(* sigh *)
Dave Simpson
Contrast to a rightard asshole like you that doesn't care HOW Bush
won, (likely cheated just like he did in the debates) just SO he won.
You got to be a special kind of stupid to be a right winger.
|
