Quantrill
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,004
- Reaction score
- 52
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
It IS unconstitutional, technically. That's why this is such a touchy subject, because it really does fall outside the general scope of Constitutional laws. Being a country born of revolution, we're are in a bit of an awkward spot; we acknowledge the right of revolution, considering we exercised it at one point. Most people would agree that when a government becomes despotic or is too far removed from the people's will, they have a right to dismantle it and rebuild to their liking. However, the right of revolution cannot be exercised like the right of free speech; this right carries very large responsibilities and high costs, thusly, it is limited. So, ironically, the Constitution holds two contradictory ideas; the right of revolution against government and also the protection of the government from uprising. So that's why there are so many strict limits and requirements for revolution to be legitimate.
In the sense you are talking about, the right of any state to pack up and leave whenever it feels like it, you are dead wrong. In the sense that thrilla is referring to it, I disagree about some specifics, but he is generally right, if I'm reading his posts correctly.
Before 1861 it was not unconstitutional. Its a touchy subject because the US is a big hypocrit when it comes to its own states leaving. And the US or Northern States in the time of the War between the States, made war unconstitutionally with the Southern States.
You can say technically all you want, but that is just bull. It was not unconstitutional which is why you cannot provide anything to prove it was.
Quantrill