• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well this is surprising! And VERY interesting at that! Heck they need to protect their borders so..... I guess this MIGHT work.

Members of the state Legislature, including Arizona's de facto governor, Senate President Russell Pearce, have introduced a bill that essentially would have Arizona secede from the union without having to do so officially.



Really.



It's called SB1433, (See it here.) It creates a 12-member committee within the legislature that could "vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government…"



Committee members themselves would decide this, then pass along their recommendation to the full Legislature. If, in turn, a majority of state lawmakers go along with the committee then, according to the bill, "this state and its citizens shall not recognize or be obligated to live under the statute, mandate or executive order."



The nullification committee also would be permitted to review all existing federal laws to see if our legislative geniuses want to toss them out as well.



In every legislative session in every state throughout the land there are proposals like this, usually made by a few fringe members who know their proposal has no chance but file it anyway to serve some personal or political agenda.
CONTINUED: azcentral.com blogs - E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog - EJMontini - Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS:

"Federal Supremacy. SB1433 overturned."

Arizona:
:(

(not that this will pass in the first place.)


Of course, I would not cry much if Arizona DID pass this and try to act like they're a sovereign nation. Remember how that worked out last time? 49 to 1 odds this time, AZ...
 
I seem to recall there was some minor SCOTUS case back in the day that stated federal authority supersedes states authority... hmmm
 
Well this is surprising! And VERY interesting at that! Heck they need to protect their borders so..... I guess this MIGHT work.


CONTINUED: azcentral.com blogs - E.J. Montini's Columns & Blog - EJMontini - Arizona to secede (without OFFICIALLY doing so)


jesusland.jpg


:mrgreen:
 
Of course, I would not cry much if Arizona DID pass this and try to act like they're a sovereign nation. Remember how that worked out last time? 49 to 1 odds this time, AZ...

They are sovereign.

This is re-re-quoted from a post made by a user here last year or so.

James Madison from the Virginia Resolution of 1798 said:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address said:
If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.

Thomas Jefferson Kentucky Resolution of 1799 said:
1. Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.

James Madison from Virginia Ratification of the Constitution of the United States said:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

You libs can hide behind rulings like Texas v. White if you wish, but the fact remains the country is founded on a union of nations that allows those nations to break from that union if they so wish. There is a logical reason that can't be denied that the states are called states and the union is called a union. Try to pretend if you wish that union was indeed a take over by the all powerful government if you wish than do you damnest to try to support it by statements of the time.

Anyway, I support this action. More states need to threaten to leave.
 
Last edited:
Disputes over State Nullification of Fed law was one of the major causes of the Civil War.
 
Yeah, this is nullification, not secession. Jackson and Calhoun had a pissin match over this over 150 years ago. South Carolina tried it under the Jackson admin regarding the "Tariff of abominations..." Didn't work.
 
Yeah, this is nullification, not secession. Jackson and Calhoun had a pissin match over this over 150 years ago. South Carolina tried it under the Jackson admin regarding the "Tariff of abominations..." Didn't work.

Nullification leads to secession. If you can't nullify something, the logical next step is to leave the group forcing you to listen right?

You libs can hide behind rulings like Texas v. White if you wish, but the fact remains the country is founded on a union of nations that allows those nations to break from that union if they so wish. There is a logical reason that can't be denied that the states are called states and the union is called a union. Try to pretend if you wish that union was indeed a take over by the all powerful government if you wish than do you damnest to try to support it by statements of the time.

Anyway, I support this action. More states need to threaten to leave.

You know what, Arizona should f**king try it. See what happens. This Union will not dissolve, and anyone who wants that is UnAmerican.

And stop being partisan, I bet you there's a crap load of conservatives against the nullification doctrine because, lest we forget, the last time we had this argument, 688,000 Americans died.
 
Last edited:
Nullification leads to secession. If you can't nullify something, the logical next step is to leave the group forcing you to listen right?

No. It doesn't lead to it. The Civil War wasn't fought over a tariff, last I checked.

Without Nullification, however, all that is left is secession -- but it's not a cause.
 
No. It doesn't lead to it. The Civil War wasn't fought over a tariff, last I checked.

Without Nullification, however, all that is left is secession -- but it's not a cause.

Whatever you want to say, the same principle from nullification applies directly to secession. Obviously, the federal government is going to enforce whatever the Arizona law nullifies, and thats going to create another battle of states' rights v. federal rights.

Unless you want to say the Civil War was not caused by tensions on the issue of State Rights v. Federal Rights.
 
So basically they are ignoring the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Fine by me. The federal government can withhold federal funding from them and give them a taste of what it really is like to be sovereign.
 
Unless you want to say the Civil War was not caused by tensions on the issue of State Rights v. Federal Rights.


That was indeed one of, if not THE, main reasons the Civil War happened.
 
The Civil War wasn't fought over a tariff, last I checked.

I'd dispute that. I actually wrote a paper in college about how tariffs contributed to the Civil war. On the exam for becoming a citizen, sometimes there's a question about why the civil war started. States rights, slavery and tariffs are all accepted responses :)
 
That was indeed one of, if not THE, main reasons the Civil War happened.

It was a reason, but the main reason was slavery. Says so, right in the articles of secession put forward by the Confederacy.
 
It was a reason, but the main reason was slavery. Says so, right in the articles of secession put forward by the Confederacy.

Which some of the Southern States cleverly labeled as being a state issue.
 
It was a reason, but the main reason was slavery. Says so, right in the articles of secession put forward by the Confederacy.

So I assume you also believe that we fought Iraq only for the reasons listed in the use-of-force resolutions? :mrgreen:
 
It was a reason, but the main reason was slavery. Says so, right in the articles of secession put forward by the Confederacy.

Actually, the main argument for slavery can be found in the speeches and public letters of deep southerners who were appointed as commissioners to try and convince the upper south to secede by appealing to the audiences' feelings of white supremacy and the preservation of slavery. A good source for these can be found in Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles Dew.

There's many other arguments to be found that it wasn't the main reason, though. If you can, I suggest you read "Rethinking the secession of the lower south: The Clash of Two groups" by Marc Egnal. He argues that economic differences in the north and south caused it.

The tariff issue is harder to argue, but I managed to do it once. It hinges on the fact that the south and north were splitting from 1920 on and tariffs contributed to this split. Required some obscure sources, but its definitely doable. I'll list my sources for anyone wanting to read more about it.
Beard, Charles. History of the United States. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1921.
Mark Thornton and Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation - The Economics of the Civil War. SR (Scholarly Resources) Books, 2004.
Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson (V.3). Twayne Publishers, 1966.
—. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993.
Stampp, Kenneth M. America in 1857: A Nation on the Brink. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Stanwood, Edward. American Tariff Controversies in the Ninteenth Century. Boston: The Riverside Press, 1904.
Taussig, Frank William. The Tariff History of the United States: A Series of Essays. New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1888.
Taylor, George Rogers. The Great Tariff Debate, 1820-1830. Boston: D C Heath & Co, 1953.


Taussig's 1888 essays being the most important.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS:

"Federal Supremacy. SB1433 overturned."

Arizona:
:(

(not that this will pass in the first place.)


Of course, I would not cry much if Arizona DID pass this and try to act like they're a sovereign nation. Remember how that worked out last time? 49 to 1 odds this time, AZ...

There was no Posse Comitatis, the last time. But, hey, don't let reality stand in your way of wishing.
 
So basically they are ignoring the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Fine by me. The federal government can withhold federal funding from them and give them a taste of what it really is like to be sovereign.

How many billions in tax revenue will the Federal government lose in that scenario? In this economy, I don't think our current government has the balls to put a dog in that fight.
 
Whatever you want to say, the same principle from nullification applies directly to secession. Obviously, the federal government is going to enforce whatever the Arizona law nullifies, and thats going to create another battle of states' rights v. federal rights.

Unless you want to say the Civil War was not caused by tensions on the issue of State Rights v. Federal Rights.

My point was that nullification doen't lead to secession; the fact that nullification failed made secession the only option later on. Had nullification succeeded, there likely would have never been any secession at all... The south could have simply nullified any federal mandates they opposed regarding slavery.

They're not the same thing, even if they both revolve around the issue of states rights.
 
Last edited:
I'd dispute that. I actually wrote a paper in college about how tariffs contributed to the Civil war. On the exam for becoming a citizen, sometimes there's a question about why the civil war started. States rights, slavery and tariffs are all accepted responses :)

I didn't say they weren't a contributing factor. But you cannot say that the Civil War was fought over the Tariff -- if so, it would've been fought in the late 1820s or 1830s. The tariff issue definitely created a rift, but it was put to rest by a compromise... a lower tariff. The country actually split over the issue of the expansion of slavery into the west... after several failed compromises.
 
Last edited:
The tariff issue definitely created a rift, but the country split over the issue of the expansion of slavery into the west.

There's many historians who would disagree with you. I posted some of their books on the previous page.
 
There's many historians who would disagree with you. I posted some of their books on the previous page.

I don't have access to a library at the moment, do you still have any actual quotes from those sources that say "the civil war was fought over a tariff?"

If that's what you believe, I can assure you, there are many historians who disagree with you. Like I said, it contributed to the division, but it wasn't the primary cause.
 
You know what, Arizona should f**king try it. See what happens. This Union will not dissolve, and anyone who wants that is UnAmerican.

I hope they do more than this. I hope they secede and I hope several other states join in. I'm all but ready, hell, I've been ready. Bring it!

I'm unamerican because I support the ten amendment and its original use and feel its time to enact it? Ok? I'm sorry, but I'm for how the country was founded, and if you aren't, see you on the opposite side.

And stop being partisan,

Follow the law and none of this will be a problem.

I bet you there's a crap load of conservatives against the nullification doctrine because, lest we forget, the last time we had this argument, 688,000 Americans died.

Oh because succession or nullification equals death. Gets some persecutive and realize the northern aggression is what caused the civil war to break out and therefore all the deaths.
 
Last edited:
I don't have access to a library at the moment, do you still have any actual quotes from those sources that say "the civil war was fought over a tariff?"

If that's what you believe, I can assure you, there are many historians who disagree with you. Like I said, it contributed to the division, but it wasn't the primary cause.

It's not that it was faught over a tariff, its that the states were splintering on many issues and tariffs happened to be one of them. http://mises.org/etexts/taussig.pdf
The taussig essays. Most of the things I posted are open source, as they are very old documents. Skip to page 43 (in the book) or 46 (in this pdf). It's dense stuff and I wouldn't expect anyone to read it unless they're really interested. It was written in 1888, after all.
"The Civil War was fought over what important issue?" - one of the twenty questions on an exam administered by the IMS to prospective American citizens.
According to the INS, you are correct if you say either "slavery or states rights".

Here's part of Egnal's paper: Rethinking the secession of the Lower South: the clash of two groups. | Goliath Business News

I can't really give you many quotes because I have these books in print and can't just ctrl-f this.
 
Back
Top Bottom