View Poll Results: Can you justify Secession?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes -- there are issues that can justify secession

    27 84.38%
  • No -- secession is always wrong

    5 15.63%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Could you justify secession?

  1. #31
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    I'd kind of like to know what people think "bad enough" entails, exactly.
    That is obviously subjective and a matter of opinion. My personal take on it is bad enough starts at the federal government willfully mis-interpreting the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. constitution, that has already happened, also bad enough in my opinion is willfully ignoring the constitution, as has happened to a degree, or even side stepping the constitution for ideological or political gain. Is it bad enough to warrant secession.....at this point no. Can it get there? absolutely.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #32
    Guru
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Plano
    Last Seen
    03-17-16 @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,062

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by George VI View Post
    In my opinion, secession should be illegal, unless the seceding state/area once had it's own independent country that was forcefully incorporated into the conquering country.

    Since most of the States in the Union haven't been independent before, if they were independent, they weren't independent for long, so in my view, none of the states can justify their secession.
    By this standard divorce should be illegal.
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/marvel-war-of-heroes/id536478373?mt=8
    iphone or ipad game

    Use Referral code bfg861256 for a free rare card.

  3. #33
    User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-04-09 @ 04:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    56

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    Set aside the politics of the moment. This is a purely hypothetical question.

    Can you articulate a justification for a state seceding from the United States? What types of issues/grievances might justify a state withdrawing from the United States?

    If you say there is no justification ever, what absolute guarantee can you articulate that state issues/grievances will achieve satisfactory resolution?
    This is going to come as a shock to most people: but legally, every state was always a sovereign nation under the law-- just like England, France, Italy or China. The United States is NOT-- nor was it ever-- "one nation, indivisible." That's just a mantra created after the Civil War, in order to make people believe what isn't so.

    Sovereign nations, by definition, don't need any "justification" to withdraw from federal republics, since they are answerable only to themselves and the sovereign that rules them.

    In the US, that sovereign is the popular majority of the state in question: that's what they were before the Constitution, and that's how the Constitution was supposed to be enforced.

    However in 1861, the Republican Party mounted a coup under Lincoln to conquer the states by force, under the false claim that they were one sovereign nation-- and had always been such-- rather than a federal republic of many sovereign nations; and in doing so, they murdered 300,000 who refused to submit to their demands, until they accomplished by force and lies, what they could not by law.
    However legally the states are still sovereign nations, since that sovereignty was never offically reversed or altered in any way; again, just saying something, doesn't make it so-- no matter how many people you murder to make others say it as well-- and so the US is not "one nation, indivisible." It's still 50 sovereign nations, and each one has the same right to secede, as the nations of the UN have the right to secede from the UN.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by SovereignState View Post
    This is going to come as a shock to most people: but legally, every state was always a sovereign nation under the law-- just like England, France, Italy or China. The United States is NOT-- nor was it ever-- "one nation, indivisible." That's just a mantra created after the Civil War, in order to make people believe what isn't so.
    No. There's no shock involved in seeing the first post of a new poster be completely wrong.

    First the Articles of Confederation limited state sovereignity and then the Constitution defined clear boundaries for both national and state spheres of authority.

  5. #35
    User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-04-09 @ 04:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    56

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    No. There's no shock involved in seeing the first post of a new poster be completely wrong.

    First the Articles of Confederation limited state sovereignity and then the Constitution defined clear boundaries for both national and state spheres of authority.
    Thanks for your reply. The Articles of Confederation specifically retained the sovereignty of every state, while Constitutional boundaries were thus strictly voluntary agreements between sovereign nations.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by SovereignState View Post
    Thanks for your reply. The Articles of Confederation specifically retained the sovereignty of every state, while Constitutional boundaries were thus strictly voluntary agreements between sovereign nations.
    Nope. The Constitution denied the total sovereignity of the states, as anyone would realize if the read the Constitution and saw that it prohibits states from coining money and entering into treaties with foreign governments, two essential acts of a sovereign state.

    The states voluntarily surrendered aspects of their soveriegnity for the advantages of being part of a greater whole, and that's the end of that. Secession wasn't an option after ratification.

  7. #37
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,779

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Nope. The Constitution denied the total sovereignity of the states, as anyone would realize if the read the Constitution and saw that it prohibits states from coining money and entering into treaties with foreign governments, two essential acts of a sovereign state.

    The states voluntarily surrendered aspects of their soveriegnity for the advantages of being part of a greater whole, and that's the end of that. Secession wasn't an option after ratification.
    this implies the foolish notion that once someone enters into contract, they can't remove themselves from said contract. It also means that we can bind future generations to contracts, which is also ridiculous.

  8. #38
    Professor
    Joe1991's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    TX
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,829

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    I say we let Alaska secede, then when all the rw nuts move up there,
    we bomb them and steal their oil.



  9. #39
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    13,779

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe1991 View Post
    I say we let Alaska secede, then when all the rw nuts move up there,
    we bomb them and steal their oil.


    what is rw?

  10. #40
    User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-04-09 @ 04:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    56

    Re: Could you justify secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    this implies the foolish notion that once someone enters into contract, they can't remove themselves from said contract. It also means that we can bind future generations to contracts, which is also ridiculous.
    Even more than that. Contract-law can bind parties against their will, they are completely subject to their own discretion under international law.

    Contract law enjoins two parties to an agreement under the law as adjudicated by the sovereign; meanwhile international law, in this instance, pertains to federal republics among sovereign nations, as defined under the Law of Nations and the Constitution: in such an arrangement, each nation retains its sovereignty, and therefore all agreements are strictly voluntary.

    The main difference between a federal republic and a treaty, is that a treaty is nullified if either side breaches one of its terms. Meanwhile a federal republic remains unbroken by one side breaching one of the terms; rather, this simply abrogates the particular term for both sides.
    You can read more about this here.

    The particular section is as follows:

    10. Of states forming a federal republic.
    Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
    This was the form of government created under the Articles of Confederation, as well as the Constitution. Each state retained its respective sovereignty, and hence is a separate nation unto itself: meanwhile their joint deliberations did not impair the sovereignty of each member, though it might, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements only.
    As such, no state had any right to use military force against any other state to coerce compliance with the law or deliberations.

    The Republican Party abrogated this international arrangement in 1833 through misinformation, claiming that the relationship was not international, but strictly national in the sense that the states formed one single nation among themselves via the Declaration of Independence.

    While official experts have corrected this notion, they continue to claim that the Constitution formed such a nation out of the states; however this is entirely false, as even a cursory examination of the founding history reveals.
    The Philadelphia convention was delegated no authority whatsoever either to relinquish any state's sovereignty, or consolidate the states into a single sovereignty. Rather, the extent of their delegated authority was solely to revise the Articles of Confederation-- and therefore the Constitution necessarily retained state sovereignty by implication, if not expressedly.

    For the Articles of Confederation retained state sovereignty expressedly due to the international dispute of such which existed by Great Britain at the time of their writing and inception (1778-1781), and therefore such express retention was required in order to avoid further dispute among the states themselves; however this dispute by Great Britain ended in 1783 by the Paris Peace Treaty of that same year, wherein Great Britain and France both recognized the sovereignty, freedom and independence of each state as an individual separate and sovereign nation unto itself-- each having the power to declare wars, make treaties, and do all the other things which sovereign nations may do by right. This international recognition by other globally-recognized sovereign nations, made each state a sovereign nation under international law.

    After this, it was no longer necessary to expressly reserve each state's national sovereignty under the Constitution; the main purpose of the Constitution was to delegate the federal government additional powers -- never to surrender any state's national sovereignty.
    Therefore, the people of any state could still vote to overrule federal laws, or withdraw from the union entirely, or anything else that a nation can do.

    The claim that the states formed a single sovereign union, is utterly false-- in fact Federalist 39 expressly assures the people of the states, that the Constitution forms "so many independent states, not a single nation," as a specific condition of their ratifying the Constitution in the first place.
    Therefore the act of betraying this trust, is nothing less than barbarous treachery and ruthless betrayal through bad faith by the Republican Party, breaching both ethics and morality.
    Last edited by SovereignState; 05-13-09 at 01:40 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •