|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:12 PM
Posts: 5,
Visits: 12
|
|
| I was wondering if anyone could help me on this subject..what it would take for a state to succeed from the union? I know with joining the union you need to have 3/5 of the states to ratify the constitution but can not find what it takes to leave and form own government..one that supports itself....i would keep the first ten ammendments and a few others that are necessary like voting age womens rights...let me know if you could please
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:57 AM
Posts: 54,
Visits: 101
|
|
| There are no rules for secession. It's unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Jon Magerle (10/14/2009)
I was wondering if anyone could help me on this subject..what it would take for a state to succeed from the union? I know with joining the union you need to have 3/5 of the states to ratify the constitution but can not find what it takes to leave and form own government..one that supports itself....i would keep the first ten ammendments and a few others that are necessary like voting age womens rights...let me know if you could please
See http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm (compiled by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. Directory titled "Documents and Commentary on Slavery, the Confederate States of America, and the 1861-65 War of Secession" at http://www.constitution.org/csa/csa.htm March 2, 1999. Updated October 24, 2007.)
As the states joined the union by an act of the people, secession may be carried out by an act of the people. I suppose specifics somewhat depend on how the state constitution was ratified and how the people of a particular state joined the union (e.g., ratifying conventions). In addition to the link above in this post, see also the links in the post I made earlier at http://our.gop.com/forums/FindPost4244700.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:26 PM
Posts: 15,
Visits: 14
|
|
N.G. (10/14/2009)Abe Lincoln's invasion of the southern states during the Civil War was illegal. Lincoln trashed the Constitution more than any other president in U.S. history.
Yes, it's true. Abe Lincoln, Republican Hero, trashed the Constitution more than any other president before him. However, I can think of one more recent Republican president who did more to trash our Constitution, and I bet you can, too (and no, I don't mean Richard Nixon, although now that you mention it ...) If we're going to move forward as a party, one thing that we need to get rid of is our blind faith in the competence of those we sent to Washington. If we don't learn from our history, we will be doomed to repeat it, yeah?
As for secession, I think it should be well within a state's rights to do so. I wish any state that wishes to secede the best of luck. They're going to need it when it comes time to raise an army, maintain highways, crack down on illegal immigration, and manage and pay for all the things that are currently handled by the federal government.
Seriously, folks. Are we so far out of the mainstream that a serious discussion about secession is what passes for our internal discourse? Are we that far off track?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:57 AM
Posts: 54,
Visits: 101
|
|
N.G. (10/14/2009)
Dana Watts (10/14/2009)
There are no rules for secession. It's unconstitutional.
You're completely wrong. The Declaration of Independence itself is a secessionist document.
The Constitution does not prohibit secession, and thus it is protected under the 10th amendment. Read the first section of chapter 3 in Dr. Thomas Woods' The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Regnery Publishing, 2004). Here is a direct link to the chapter at Google Books: http://bit.ly/36WM3F
Here's some videos on the subject:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvliy8rEJDQ
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kuvj6FIefo
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8erXFhEtMkc
4. http://bit.ly/DmO1b (link to a Fox News video)
Also, examine the state sovereignty principles in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written in large part by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky General Assembly: http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyadopted.html
Abe Lincoln's invasion of the southern states during the Civil War was illegal. Lincoln trashed the Constitution more than any other president in U.S. history.
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Dana Watts (10/14/2009)
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.
Who cares what the courts say? Are state laws against abortion unconstitutional because of Roe v. Wade (even though the Constitution doesn't actually address the issue)? If the Supreme Court ruled that rape was okay and is to be accepted throughout the entire United States, would you support that? According your flawed argument, anything the Supreme Court says must be constitutional. That is false; the courts swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; they are not superior to it. When the courts rule against original intent, the courts are wrong and their rulings are void.
One of the biggest nationalist untruths that people believe, is the erroneous belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. See this article by Harvard-educated constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794
And here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson on judicial review: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:26 PM
Posts: 15,
Visits: 14
|
|
| Isn't the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitional actually enshrined in the Constitution?
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:57 AM
Posts: 54,
Visits: 101
|
|
N.G. (10/14/2009)
Dana Watts (10/14/2009)
The Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ.
Who cares what the courts say? Are state laws against abortion unconstitutional because of Roe v. Wade (even though the Constitution doesn't actually address the issue)? If the Supreme Court ruled that rape was okay and is to be accepted throughout the entire United States, would you support that? According your flawed argument, anything the Supreme Court says must be constitutional. That is false; the courts swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; they are not superior to it. When the courts rule against original intent, the courts are wrong and their rulings are void.
One of the biggest nationalist untruths that people believe, is the erroneous belief that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. See this article by Harvard-educated constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/794
And here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson on judicial review: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm
Talk about a straw man. The SCOTUS has ruled that secession is unconstitutional. It does not matter one bit legally what you or I think. That's all it amounts to. I don't have to agree, but that is where it currently stands. So for a state to secede, they would be, according to the highest court in the land, violating the constitution. Now you can post whatever links you like, but until the court changes its mind, it is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:41 PM
Posts: 57,
Visits: 78
|
|
Ed Moran (10/14/2009)
Isn't the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitional actually enshrined in the Constitution?
No, it most definitely is not. The Supreme Court is the supreme court, not the supreme governmental entity. The Constitution says that the Constitution itself is supreme, not the courts.
|
|
|
|
