Well, duh. There is no situation in which any of your rights can't be curtailed or removed completely. Your free speech in curtailed, your right to vote can be removed and your right to life can be taken away. What makes you think there would be no limited of self-determination?
no,this is incorrect.... by utilizing the constitutional principle of consent of the many states, with successful ratification in the legislature, a succession can be successfully pulled off.
then you answer to the initial question I posed of self determination is " no, they should not be allowed to self determine".. and not " yes , of course.....<snip>"
giving your life so others can live free sounds noble, but giving your life so others can live well sounds stupid. Yet many of our political leaders laud our troops for the sacrifices they make while quietly undermining the veterans chances of ever living well.Μολὼν λαβέ;1060511052 said:Germany has nothing to do with the Texas or the US.
Who is we? Do you speak for the government? Go ahead and confiscate the currency as you put it; but the more likely scenario is to exchange it for something like gold. Yes, that would probably be sufficient for the people of Texas. Can't occupy Texas roads if Texas secedes unless you want a war. I really doubt the people of the US would stand for that. The whole country would go up in flames, with the exception of maybe Kalifornia, and some other "suck the life out of their own economy, we need federal aid because we are too dumb to manage our own budget" states.
But Texas seceding from the union seems like an interesting prospect. I think the Washington elite and their lackeys would find out that states rights really are important to most people, with the noted exceptions above.
Republic of Texas - David Crockett
Davey Crockett continues to be an inspiration to Texans for the reasons you just read. Many would emulate his actions to preserve their way of life if necessary.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060511052 said:Germany has nothing to do with the Texas or the US.
Who is we? Do you speak for the government? Go ahead and confiscate the currency as you put it; but the more likely scenario is to exchange it for something like gold. Yes, that would probably be sufficient for the people of Texas. Can't occupy Texas roads if Texas secedes unless you want a war. I really doubt the people of the US would stand for that. The whole country would go up in flames, with the exception of maybe Kalifornia, and some other "suck the life out of their own economy, we need federal aid because we are too dumb to manage our own budget" states.
But Texas seceding from the union seems like an interesting prospect. I think the Washington elite and their lackeys would find out that states rights really are important to most people, with the noted exceptions above.
Republic of Texas - David Crockett
Davey Crockett continues to be an inspiration to Texans for the reasons you just read. Many would emulate his actions to preserve their way of life if necessary.
That's like saying nothing in Constitution addresses DUIs or child porn, therefore, both are legal.
Secession is not determined by the "rule of law", the Supreme Court, the Congress, the president, or whatever the hell Texas thinks it wants. Secession is determined by the Rule of Gun.
No, its like saying you stated that it was unconstitutional. Now you can't prove it was unconstitutional. But you don't want to admit it. So, I ask again. Was it unconstitutional prior to 1861 for a state to seced?
Quantrill
You have a legal contradiction then. The unilateral law of the land says the federal government is the ultimate law of the land, it sets the minimum standard. But if you include the right to unilateral secession, then the federal law isn't really the ultimate authority.
Yes, it was.
the manner in which succession was attempted is , and was, unconstitutional.
...but that's not the same thing as saying succession is unconstitutional.... it depends entirely up the method by which succession is attempted.
no,this is incorrect.... by utilizing the constitutional principle of consent of the many states, with successful ratification in the legislature, a succession can be successfully pulled off.
Go read a history book. The whole creation of the "Republic of Texas" was by Americans, with the support of the United States government, as a pretense for taking Texas from Mexico. It was a prelude to the Mexican War, and "manifest destiny" and so forth.
Basically, without the support of the United States, Texas would still be part of Mexico. Ole.
Then show where or who says it.
Quantrill
Show where secession was uncontitutional.
Quantrill
That only works in some cases. When did the independent nation of Arkansas consent to joining the United States? Never. When did the independent "Kingdom of Iowa" accede to the Constitution? Never.
If the Constitution can be broken at any time, then there's no basis for it. There's nothing to stop any state from nullifying any Federal law.
If Texas can secede from the United States, why can't certain counties of Texas secede from Texas and rejoin the Union for a couple of weeks? Then rejoin when it's convienient again.
That only works in some cases. When did the independent nation of Arkansas consent to joining the United States? Never. When did the independent "Kingdom of Iowa" accede to the Constitution? Never.
If the Constitution can be broken at any time, then there's no basis for it. There's nothing to stop any state from nullifying any Federal law.
If Texas can secede from the United States, why can't certain counties of Texas secede from Texas and rejoin the Union for a couple of weeks? Then rejoin when it's convienient again.
nothing can constitutionally occur that affects the political jurisdiction or sovereignty of a State without consent of the States.How was the Constitution being broken by secession in 1861?
Quantrill
Zzzzzzzz, this is why I brought up DUIs and child porn. There is no explicit statement made against either, just like there is no explicit mention of secession, yet both are still illegal. It has been established as legal precedent that states only have the right to revolt/secede in extenuating circumstances. The Civil War did not fall under that, no matter how much conservatives want to make the Civil War about nice people in the south being bullied just cause they owned human beings. You want something impossible from me, ironclad statements saying that succession is illegal. There is none. But there is even less in favor of your view, that states can leave the US whenever they feel like it. There is legal precedent directly rejecting this view.
nothing can constitutionally occur that affects the political jurisdiction or sovereignty of a State without consent of the States.
It didn't stop you from declaring secession unconstitutional.
John Quincy Adams said in 1839:
"To the people alone is there reserved as well the dissolving as the constituent power...we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union with reference to the jGeneral Government, which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to the supreme head of the jBritish Empire, of which they formed a part; and under these lilmitations (i.e. that the act of secession follow a breach of contract and be answerable to conscience) have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confedereated Union itself. "
from James M. Bulman, It Is Their Right, p. 61
Quantrill
Makes no sense.
The Southern States were not allowed the right to secede.
Quantrill