Reply With Quote
I don't know about North Carolina, but I know that Texas had to give up the right to secede when the carpetbaggers were running things after the Civil War. I assume all the defeated confederate states re-entered under the same terms.
False. North Carolina and a few other states explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union when they entered it in the first place; no one objected to such a reservation at all back then, because it was commonly assumed that states could leave if they chose.
It's also funny that so many people like to say the Civil War 'settled' whether a state could secede or not. 'Wars don't determine who is right, only who is left.'
I don't know about North Carolina, but I know that Texas had to give up the right to secede when the carpetbaggers were running things after the Civil War. I assume all the defeated confederate states re-entered under the same terms.
Contract terms you agree to with a gun to your head are not enforceable; coercion or duress affect your ability to truly consent.
texas going to war against the states sounds like something a bubba would endorse.
Governor of Texas Bubba or President Bubba?
resident bubba's
I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply when it comes to nations at war and surrender treaties."I know we said we'd do X actions if we surrendered, but that contract is unenforceable because we were under duress, so we're not doing X."
The Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession to be uncons utional 140 years ago.
The Soviet Union dissolved entirely. It would only be analogous if the United States dissolved entirely and allowed each state to become independent, not just one or two.
The UN's military and economic strength is overwhelmingly the United States, so No, the UN would not be all "over that ". No other country worth a damn would lift a finger to help a state secede uncons utionally. And any secession against the will of any of the other states is uncons utional.
The scary thing is, plenty of arizonans are as stupid as ducks on this issue.
If Arizona were to secede from the union, it would take at most 3 months for Arizona to be overrun with drugs, crime, poverty, and even those who shall not be mentioned (illegals). Any lawyer, doctor or other semi-educated human being who would help Arizona would bolt from the state in under a week, and there'd be nothing left but the bunch of re ed rednecks who wanted them to secede.
Ducks is what Sarah Palin would call a "Real American", and ironically the "Real Americans" are the ones that think it's ok to commit treason and secede.
We would have a funny looking flag with only 49 stars.
Just following the great example set forth by our leaders.
It depends on what you call treason. Personally, i think most of our politicians in Washington are committing treason and putting their own interests ahead of the US.
Well, it really depends on if you're using it as a "legal" term or just in the general sense of the word.
Well, lets put it this way...I see zero chance that the politicians in Washington have the political will to keep from driving the US economy off the cliff. I don't view taking the risk to try to jump off the bus before it goes over the edge as treasonous. I think the drivers of the bus are treasonous for destroying our country.
Except that it's, you know, actually treason.
So you're using it in the general sense of the word, and not the legal one. Ok
The founders of our once great country were guilty of treason too.
Wouldn't it just be easier to renounce your citizenship and move somewhere else?
Sure, won't deny that.
Of course, there were some mitigating factors helping their decision.
Hey, if you think you can win an armed revolution against the US, go right ahead. The Supreme Court says that would be ok if you won.
Wikipedia:
"The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was uncons utional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."
Bolding mine. Notice the plurality of states. No one state can secede, nor even a few. It requires the entire Union to secede, otherwise known as a revolution.
Further relevant wiki information on the actual case:
"In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Cons ution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]"
Bolding again mine. That which was agreed upon or passed by the Confederacy is considered null and void - including any such agreements with the United States concerning their right to secede.
Or, as the presiding Chief Justice Salmon Chase aptly wrote:
"What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Last edited by z0sa; 04-20-2011 at 12:39 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
