With all fifty states offering petitions to the central government to leave the Union, the legality of secession is now front page news in the United States. Can a state legally secede from the Union? Many, including Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase suggest no
.but
.theres more.
Read more at
http://no-ruler.net/4029/is-secession-legal/
Tasine wrote:
With all fifty states offering petitions to the central government to leave the Union, the legality of secession is now front page news in the United States. Can a state legally secede from the Union? Many, including Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase suggest no
.but
.theres more.
Read more at
http://no-ruler.net/4029/is-secession-legal/The Constitution guarantees States sovereignty, the Union was born when the States determined that course, but it was not required. The Federal Government has done little, since 1798, but continually wrest more power from States. Nationalizing State malitia's was one of those steps, thus circumscribing State Governments use of it's troops.
This question came up in 1861 and the "discussion" was finally ended in 1865...learn from American history, Neocon Halfwits!
Terry Allan Hall wrote:
This question came up in 1861 and the "discussion" was finally ended in 1865...learn from American history, Neocon Halfwits!
No discussion is ended, until no one wishes to continue. Fortunately, your arrogant ignorance is irrelevant.
Terry Allan Hall wrote:
This question came up in 1861 and the "discussion" was finally ended in 1865...learn from American history, Neocon Halfwits!
Too bad you didn't read the article. It truly has some interesting info there that you won't find many places.
saltwind 78 wrote:
Not since the Civil War!
I hope you'll read the article - it might change your mind, or at least mute a hasty response before reading the next article. It is really a good item for everyone to read.
lpnmajor wrote:
No discussion is ended, until no one wishes to continue. Fortunately, your arrogant ignorance is irrelevant.
Sadly, your arrogant ignorance continues.
Personally, I have no problem with you Half-wits (and I'm being generous in many cases) taking on the government with your hand-guns and deer rifles...cheaper than educating your "team" (as that obviously didn't work when you were children) and it removes inferior input into the national gene pool.
Tasine wrote:
Too bad you didn't read the article. It truly has some interesting info there that you won't find many places.
Read it, and while I enjoy reading fiction, I'm not taking such reading material too seriously.
Terry Allan Hall wrote:
Sadly, your arrogant ignorance continues.
Personally, I have no problem with you Half-wits (and I'm being generous in many cases) taking on the government with your hand-guns and deer rifles...cheaper than educating your "team" (as that obviously didn't work when you were children) and it removes inferior input into the national gene pool.
You are confusing me with some other persons and making weird assumptions, but I understand why. That's why I don't take these things personally. Such ignorance usually follows through many genetic branches, so a twig is realitive.
Terry Allan Hall wrote:
Read it, and while I enjoy reading fiction, I'm not taking such reading material too seriously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Somehow, forgive me, but I don't believe you did read it. If you did before making your first post, you are one heck of a fast reader.
Terry Allan Hall wrote:
This question came up in 1861 and the "discussion" was finally ended in 1865...learn from American history, Neocon Halfwits!
What was proven is that "might makes right," and "the winners write the history books." Like most fights, the winner was determined by superior logistics, not superior morals.
Terry Allan Hall wrote:
This question came up in 1861 and the "discussion" was finally ended in 1865...learn from American history, Neocon Halfwits!
***
Exactly! The Republicans refuse to adapt to nature's imperative: adapt or go extinct. They refuse to accept the research that they must change and adapt to changing demographics, which means expanding their base beyond the wealthy 1% and the semi-illiterate, lock-and-load amen choir--the angry white male vote.
They continually refuse to do their homework and adapt to young women and minorities. Their gender gap, black gap, and Hispanic gaps are overwhelming. What are their "adaptation" strategies???
1. Convention of states
2. Repeal the 17th amendment, the direct election of U.S. senators.
3. A coup d'etat led by treasonous ex-military members.
4. Suppression of the minority and youth vote.
5. Illegal treasonous armed insurrection.
6. Secession
Only one potential nominee for the GOP is willing to do the homework, Jeb Bush, and the far right knuckle-draggers hate him. They would rather stay home on election day and lose for the third time in a row...which is exactly what is going to happen as minorities, young women, and liberal baby-boomers put another Democrat into the White House in 2016.
Legal or not this government will not relinquish power. While it is a wonderful thought, unless the states are ready for and capable of wining a civil war, it's not doable.
As weak as America has become, I think our enemies would love to see a civil war.
Youleft out #7- The cleansing effect of a meteor or several at one time re-setting the timeline to a "simpler" period where men entered into society for the protection of their property since then as is now "all wealth is the product of labor" (john locke)
Jeb Bush denies law and replaces it with emotion based upon the 50% makeup of Mexico nationals in the Bush Clan families including his own.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.