Succession Threads: Merged

[CMP_5.56]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-colorado-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/lWDshfl3

I for one know many people on here disagree with the federal go remnant being in our lives, especially these days. Here is a way to make it stop.

[TEAMRICO]

Did this past election just show the majority of voters went DEMOCRAT?
This would not be a good thing IMO......

[Teufelhund]

Talk of secession in different States seems to follow every election. Good luck getting traction on this. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen a petition filed on whitehouse.gov go anywhere?

I noticed most of the signers of this particular petition don't even live in CO.

[DOC]

We could be like Switzerland.

[Sharpienads]

Talk of secession in different States seems to follow every election. Good luck getting traction on this. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever seen a petition filed on whitehouse.gov go anywhere?

I noticed most of the signers of this particular petition don't even live in CO.

Yeah, what's up with that? We should start a petition to get CA and NY to peacefully secede.

[Ronin13]

I heard reports of some 27 states wanting to do this... I agree, probably nothing will come of it, just frustration being directed to one extreme. Thus far, searching around, Michigan and Louisiana as well have these petitions. After seeing last night though, Michigan only had 3 signatures when I first saw it.

[Circuits]

Secession is perfectly legal still, but the precedent of the civil war established that it cannot be undertaken unilaterally. To secede, a state would have to get congress to approve the cession, or do it by constitutional convention (the US constitution, with 3/4 of state legislatures approving the amendment, etc).

[SA Friday]

Secession is perfectly legal still, but the precedent of the civil war established that it cannot be undertaken unilaterally. To secede, a state would have to get congress to approve the cession, or do it by constitutional convention (the US constitution, with 3/4 of state legislatures approving the amendment, etc).
Yep, don't see that happening...

[hammer03]

Reportedly someone from North Dakota started a petition to have New York secede from the Union. That made me chuckle.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/523564_444341335601551_1087901022_n.jpg

[Irving]

There aren't many things I take more seriously than an internet petition.

[MrPrena]

Do you think TX has a enough budget to support their own?



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15117305-petition-for-texas-to-secede-from-us-reaches-threshold-for-white-house-response?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15117305-petition-for-texas-to-secede-from-us-reaches-threshold-for-white-house-response?lite)


Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response

By Vignesh Ramachandran
An online petition that calls for the state to Texas to withdraw from the U.S. and create its own government on Monday reached the required signature threshold to receive an official response from The White House.


Follow @NBCNewsUS
The petition on WhiteHouse.gov asks the Obama administration to "peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own new government." The petition had surpassed 34,000 signatures as of Monday evening. It was created by a person self-identified only as "Micah H." from Arlington, Texas.




The petition cites the nation's economic woes as an issue and says that the condition of Texas' budget and economy make it "practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union."
Online petitions on WhiteHouse.gov that get sufficient support are reviewed by White House staff and "sent to the appropriate policy experts." To be searchable on WhiteHouse.gov in the first place, petitions currently need to get 150 signatures within 30 days. To get an official response, petitions need 25,000 signatures within 30 days.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
Similar petitions from other states have also been filed including: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee. However, unlike the petition from Texas, none of these states had reached the 25,000-signature threshold to get an official White House response as of Monday evening.
According to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, a 1866 proclamation signed by then-President Andrew Johnson clearly spelled out that no state had the right to leave the union:
"...It is the manifest determination of the American people that no State, of its own will, has a right or power to go out of or separate itself from, or be separated from the American Union; and that, therefore, each State ought to remain and constitute an integral part of the United States..."
The flurry of petitions are likely just the consequence of voters unhappy with last week's presidential election results. University of Texas at Austin Assistant Professor Jason Casellas told NBC News that's likely the case in Texas, where 57 percent of the state population's vote went for Republican Mitt Romney.
Catherine Frazier, press secretary for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, told NBC News Monday that the governor "believes in the greatness of our Union and nothing should be done to change it."
"But he also shares the frustrations many Americans have with our federal government," Frazier said in a statement. "Now more than ever our country needs strong leadership from states like Texas, that are making tough decisions to live within their means, keep taxes low and provide opportunities to job creators so their citizens can provide for their families and prosper."

[spqrzilla]

Silly season isn't over sadly.

[45XD]

How the hell is anyone going to take this even remotely seriously if New York is on the list?

[hammer03]

Someone from North Dakota submitted the one to have NY secede.

[buckshotbarlow]

How the hell is anyone going to take this even remotely seriously if New York is on the list?

you're also forgetting colorado...

[Skully]

The only way a State(s) could seceded will be under a huge movement, and sadly, spilled blood.


........not something that should be considered lightly by anyone. :(

[Teufelhund]

I think it's safe to assume the White House response will look something like this:

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.5004256151142834&pid=1.7&w=172&h=139&c=7&rs=1

[HoneyBadger]

Someone from North Dakota submitted the one to have NY secede.


Now that's funny! [LOL]

[Pancho Villa]

I think we've already established how states secede.

[Goodburbon]

I think we've already established how states secede.

...and how the federal government reacts.

[gos]

I find it entertaining how many people think secession because you don't like an election is a likely outcome.

[streetglideok]

In so many words, thats what happened in 1861. Southern states did not like the fact a republican president won. They left.

[BigDee]

Texas is one of the largest economies in not just the US but the world and has managed to do much better than the majority of the country since the recession occurred. The Texas economy continues to grow despite the majority of the US economy.

It's not a matter of whether or not Texas can survive without the US it is more a matter of how badly hurt the US would be without TX.

[Rucker61]

Texas is one of the largest economies in not just the US but the world and has managed to do much better than the majority of the country since the recession occurred. The Texas economy continues to grow despite the majority of the US economy.

It's not a matter of whether or not Texas can survive without the US it is more a matter of how badly hurt the US would be without TX.

I assume that the newly independent Republic of Texas would insist on a mutual defense treaty with the United States that it despises so much?

[jackthewall81]

I would be down. Let the welfare hounds have their own country.

[BigDee]

I assume that the newly independent Republic of Texas would insist on a mutual defense treaty with the United States that it despises so much?

Are you insinuating that the United states would militarily attack the peaceful nation of Texas? Or are you insinuating that Mexico would attack Texas?

[BPTactical]

A noble thought,.Texas and 29 other states seceding.

But they have it all wrong, it should be 50 states telling DC to fuck off.
We are a nation of states that are to dictate to the Fed what We The People demand of our elected leaders.

[BigDee]

Yup.


A noble thought,.Texas and 29 other states seceding.

But they have it all wrong, it should be 50 states telling DC to fuck off.
We are a nation of states that are to dictate to the Fed what We The People demand of our elected leaders.

[islandermyk]

A Judge from Texas mentioned something not to long ago about civil unrest if Oblowme won a 2nd term...



... I guess it's starting to look like he's right...

[MrPrena]

there are lots of S&P500 companies in TX, but they gotta factor these in.
IF TX goes independent and not a part of US, doing business with US will be international trade. Some minor tariffs and quotas will be imposed.
No federal funding of any sort.

TX then has has impose same thing on goods that comes into TX.
Walmart, Safeway, Kroger, automobiles, and any necessities to luxury item will be an import, not a delivery.

IMHO, Odds are very slim at this time. Who knows near to distant future....

[Madusa]

Don't you think Barry would go to war? Would the FED. finally build a fence to keep out those pesky Texan immigrants? Texas could import from any other country and collect tariff money and not share it with the USA. Go Texas

[Ashton]

A huge part of the security industry is in texas as well as data storage... I'm talking guys with 15 million dollar quotas for a part of the state of texas. Whereas, a comparable job in colorado would only hold a 2-3 million dollar quota. The gov will never let this happen though.

[Byte Stryke]

would you let your golden goose leave?

I think the response from the WH is going to be a call to the Governor of Texas "Quell that shit."

[alxone]

i was told by a facebook friend that without ft hoods money Texas economy would collapse [ROFL1]

[Whistler]

Most States entered the Union voluntarily and there is nothing in The Constitution that prevents States from voluntarily withdrawing from that Union however Mr. Lincoln acting outside lawful authority labeled it "rebellion", "treasonous" and a "threat to the Government", we know the rest. The Constitution of Texas does not explicitly allow for succession (nothing that precludes it either) but it does allow for Texas to split into four additional States and it did join the union as a Sovereign Republic under a "Joint Resolution for Annexation" subject only to "The Constitution of the United States" not "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...".


"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Texas is one of few States with the resources and infrastructure to actually have a chance at pulling it off however the Federal Government would never allow it. As was the case with the South, economic drivers will justify any atrocity to retain the resource. Sort of like the Civil War was about slavery...

[BushMasterBoy]

Techs Ass.....LOL

[lifeon2]

Hmmm lets see they have oil, shipping, fishing industry, huge agricultural assets.....yeah they can do it.

[dwalker460]

I assume that the newly independent Republic of Texas would insist on a mutual defense treaty with the United States that it despises so much?


You think anyone in Texas think they need the US Govt for defense?? Shit son, the rest of the world is afraid Texas will secede. First mission- invade Mexico and quell that shit. Get a little payback for Santa Anna, and sort out this whole "border" issue". Would be funny seeing Mexico annexed as "South Texas". I bet even New Mehico and Arizona would get in on that shit. Solve the illegal problem the old fashion way, through invasion, domination, and annexation.
Next up, kick that sick bastard out of Columbia, and shut down the Gulf O Mehico to furreners who want to drill oil, fish coastal waters, and otherwise generally muck with American... scuse me TEXICAN, commerce.
Texas unleashed should make Mexico and South America very very nervous...

[asmo]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/679885_4910927735270_1926577219_o.jpg

[dwalker460]

Yeah, Ijoke with my Canadian friends that if they get too uppity we will move Texas in next to them. They do not like that idea...

[ronaldrwl]

I love the new Texas map.

[Teufelhund]

First mission- invade Mexico and quell that shit. Get a little payback for Santa Anna, and sort out this whole "border" issue".

[ROFL1] That's some funny shit right there.

[Rucker61]

Texas unleashed should make Mexico and South America very very nervous...

While it would look like opportunity to China.

[Ronin13]

There aren't many things I take more seriously than an internet petition.
[ROFL1]
But if it's on the internet it must be legitimate!

[sniper7]

Id move to Texas. I wouldn't want to pay the import taxes on LaRue stuff!

[rockhound]

I would like to personally secede from the union,

[Teufelhund]

While it would look like opportunity to China.

Opportunity for what? China is terrified of the number of gun-owners in the U.S. already, and Texas epitomizes that picture. I think China would know they'd be writing a check their ass couldn't cash.

[Rucker61]

Opportunity for what? China is terrified of the number of gun-owners in the U.S. already, and Texas epitomizes that picture. I think China would know they'd be writing a check their ass couldn't cash.

You may be right, but note that every invading force in the last century has included artillery and other heavy weapons which typically aren't owned by the opposing citizenry, even in Texas. This whole conversation is pure fantasy, because the Federal government is not going to let any state secede.

[hatidua]

This whole conversation is pure fantasy, because the Federal government is not going to let any state secede.

That.

[Teufelhund]

You may be right, but note that every invading force in the last century has included artillery and other heavy weapons which typically aren't owned by the opposing citizenry, even in Texas. This whole conversation is pure fantasy, because the Federal government is not going to let any state secede.

That would definitely suck. I don't think you can have any kind of privately-owned Howitzer in Texas. The laws may loosen up a little if Texas had to defend itself from an aggressor.

Yes, of course it is purely hypothetical. This comes up every four years or so (go figure), but doesn't typically receive so much media attention. It would never actually happen. Hell, nearly half of Texas voted for Obama. That said, is it actually within the Federal government's power to prohibit any State from leaving?

[jackthewall81]

...and how the federal government reacts.
Screw the Feds.

[Ronin13]

This whole conversation is pure fantasy, because the Federal government is not going to let any state secede.

Outside of the 1860's, has a peaceful secession ever been attempted? I would imagine if you had a majority in a certain state decide to it would be possible. We all want to avoid any civil war or violence, and the way states rights have been deteriorated over the last 100 years or so, it would seem their grievances are legitimate and I don't believe there is any law that states a state within the union doesn't have the right to withdraw.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I would be down. Let the welfare hounds have their own country.

Instead of fleeing, why don't you make THEM have their own country. Start a petition to give California (except San Diego and surrounding county) back to Mexico and New York/New Jersey back to England -- or perhaps Canada as the geographically-closest member of the British Commonwealth. Hell, throw Vermont in there too so we can dump Bernie Sanders on another country ... ;)

[Aloha_Shooter]

Outside of the 1860's, has a peaceful secession ever been attempted? I would imagine if you had a majority in a certain state decide to it would be possible. We all want to avoid any civil war or violence, and the way states rights have been deteriorated over the last 100 years or so, it would seem their grievances are legitimate and I don't believe there is any law that states a state within the union doesn't have the right to withdraw.

Secession? Not exactly but there has been a sovereignty movement in Hawaii for the last 30 years attempting to get the US to recognize the fact that the American Ambassador and detached Marines supported an illegal and hostile overthrow of a friendly and cooperative government which was recognized throughout Europe as a sovereign power. One of the many problems with their premise is that most of the people in the so-called sovereignty movement are themselves Marxists that would have been protesting the Hawaiian Kingdom if it still existed. Another major issue is that the Kamehameha line no longer has any recognized heir and neither does the Kalakaua family so the only available legal construct (e.g., election through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs) has never had any standing as a sovereign power.

[Zundfolge]

Outside of the 1860's, has a peaceful secession ever been attempted? I would imagine if you had a majority in a certain state decide to it would be possible. We all want to avoid any civil war or violence, and the way states rights have been deteriorated over the last 100 years or so, it would seem their grievances are legitimate and I don't believe there is any law that states a state within the union doesn't have the right to withdraw.
Actually the initial secession by the Confederate states was peaceful ... but then the South Carolinians couldn't stand the thought of armed American troops "occupying" Ft Sumter (and Lincoln certainly wasn't going to order their retreat) and instead of waiting for some sort of peaceful, legal removal of the US troops they just started shooting.

Now considering how many US military outposts there are in Texas, I expect something similar would happen. Even if Texas was allowed to secede, they wouldn't be allowed to expel US troops and certainly wouldn't be allowed to nationalize them. Which probably wouldn't set too well with Texans.


Of course I've been suspicious that all these petitions have shown up on the White House web site ... I smell a rat. Either the White House is collecting the names of "enemies" or they're planning for the eventual dissolution of the US (which would probably be followed soon after with invasion by the Chinese or Russians ... one of which Obama has bowed to, the other he's promised "more flexibility after the election").

[Danimal]

This whole thing is significant on other levels. When there is a general response given, regardless of what it is, the media will report and the message is out there. Then in a couple years when we are collapsing like Greece the secession will be a more warranted and desired outcome with the proper backing and the government will not be able to do anything about it. It is getting the idea out there that is important and for the right reasons. Economic downfall is the right reason and if things get as bad as the could over this next term you will indeed see the support needed for a secession to take place. Either that or I think that we should all buy a nice little island somewhere and set up our own little government there with our own currency and tell the US to pound sand when they come looking for tax dollars.

[Zundfolge]

Like I said in the other secession thread, I'm suspicious that all these petitions have shown up on the White House web site ... I smell a rat. Either the White House is collecting the names of "enemies" or they're planning for the eventual dissolution of the US (which would probably be followed soon after with invasion by the Chinese or Russians ... one of which Obama has bowed to, the other he's promised "more flexibility after the election").

[ronaldrwl]

Even BO isn't dump enough to let go his money making R's

[Ronin13]

This whole thing is significant on other levels. When there is a general response given, regardless of what it is, the media will report and the message is out there. Then in a couple years when we are collapsing like Greece the secession will be a more warranted and desired outcome with the proper backing and the government will not be able to do anything about it. It is getting the idea out there that is important and for the right reasons. Economic downfall is the right reason and if things get as bad as the could over this next term you will indeed see the support needed for a secession to take place. Either that or I think that we should all buy a nice little island somewhere and set up our own little government there with our own currency and tell the US to pound sand when they come looking for tax dollars.
"I claim this island in the name of our new nation! Guntopia!" [Coffee]I can dig it! [Beer]

[Ronin13]

Even BO isn't dump enough to let go his money making R's
I dunno- he sure seems dumb enough to alienate and push them away... Whatever happens, I don't like where this all is heading.

[DOC]

F22 raptor is made in texas.

[TFOGGER]

I wonder if China would accept the northeast as payment for the debt that they hold....

[Zundfolge]

I wonder if China would accept the northeast as payment for the debt that they hold....

No, they've got enough unproductive mouths to feed at home ... no, I expect that China will want states with productive people, industry and agriculture. Unfortunately for them, that's where the people that will shoot back live :p

[nynco]

If TX wants to go... I say let them. I believe that no state should be held hostage. If they want to go and vote for that, I wish them well.


http://youtu.be/qCLz7XQOIOQ

This video is for comic purposes... Well I know I laughed.

[TFOGGER]

No, they've got enough unproductive mouths to feed at home ... no, I expect that China will want states with productive people, industry and agriculture. Unfortunately for them, that's where the people that will shoot back live :p

DC IS the world's largest producer of hot air, and just look at the amount of bullshit coming out of NYC... the Chinese are industrious enough to figure out how to convert that to usable energy...

[Rust_shackleford]

Secession is perfectly legal still, but the precedent of the civil war established that it cannot be undertaken unilaterally. To secede, a state would have to get congress to approve the cession, or do it by constitutional convention (the US constitution, with 3/4 of state legislatures approving the amendment, etc).

If this Country were truely free, a state could just walk away. Yet the Confederation of states has been taken over by an over powered central government.

[Ashton]

F22 raptor is made in texas.

The F22 Raptor is no longer in production.

[DOC]

Well then it was the F35. The new Jetfighter.

[HoneyBadger]

Something else to consider:
There are 7 active duty Air Force bases in Texas, and several of them are the biggest training bases for the air force. Lackland is where very airman goes to bootcamp. Sheppard, Randolph, and Laughlin are all huge pilot training bases.. About 80% of Air Force pilots train at one of those three bases. Goodfellow is the home base of the Air Force's intelligence school. Texas leaving the union through any means would sit like a rosebush up the Fed's ass.

[Aperta]

NVM Repost got to excited here a link the the other thread http://www.ar-15.co/threads/71409-Petition-for-Texas-to-secede-from-US-reaches-threshold-for-White-House-response

you many now call me dumbass

[nynco]

You all can have TX... lol TX wants to go, I figure the rest that have decided the world has ended because Obummer got elected can seek political asylum there.

[DSB OUTDOORS]

NVM Repost got to excited here a link the the other thread http://www.ar-15.co/threads/71409-Petition-for-Texas-to-secede-from-US-reaches-threshold-for-White-House-response

you many now call me dumbass
OK, Dumb ass. [ROFL1] JK. I'm just couscous how this is going to play out. Zombie Apocalypse is coming. Or end of the world.

[MarkCO]

Don't you think that the Dems would LOVE for Texas to get out of the US? Remove that huge block of electoral college votes and it pretty much seals the deal for the Dems to control the US until they have completly marginalized and socialized the remainder. And we wonder why Romney lost...we are arguing about Texas leaving, they are laughing hoping Texas does leave. Heck a Dem probably started the petition.

[Singlestack]

Dems don't want any state to succeed. Power and control is all they want, over as many as possible. Nope, they are all about disarming the populace and shoving their ideology down everyone's throat.

[sneakerd]

Why are are we even wasting time on this? Nothing more than an exercise in self-flagellation. Total waste of time and thought as it can never happen.

[nynco]

Yeah single stack has it 100% right... just ask the voices.

[sneakerd]

Actually singlestack has it exactly right, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the voices in nynco's head (ass). Make as many as possible dependent on the gov't, and Democrats (liberals) will be in control until the nation falls.

[Ashton]

Given the economic influence and military strength of texas if they were to be allowed to do what they want. They would be bombed. Destroyed. We would have a fence off from mexico.

[Ashton]

Not to mention oil and gas prices would skyrocket.

[DOC]

Colorado can join them and we can use the oil here and the oil there to fuel our fight with the rest of the fly around country.

[nynco]

Shhhhh don't tell anyone but Colorado is a BLUE state.... mean BLUE BLUE BLUE. State, local (most areas) Governor, Senators and the state legislature... Its more blue than New Jersey [NoEvil]

[Circuits]

Shhhhh don't tell anyone but Colorado is a BLUE state.... mean BLUE BLUE BLUE. State, local (most areas) Governor, Senators and the state legislature... Its more blue than New Jersey [NoEvil]

+1 The US is pretty much done, as for what it was. The old guard has been outbred and out-immigrated. The tyranny of the majority fast approaches, and today's socialism-lite will devolve further with every "reality" show that owes its roots to vox-populism and Jerry Springer.

To paraphrase Heinlein, the plebs have discovered that they can vote themselves bread and circuses.

[DOC]

So negative. I'm doing my part to breed a master race. (Hard working, gun owning, heterosexual, god fearing)

[Byte Stryke]

F22 raptor is made in texas.

and Dobbins ARB in Smyrna GA

[Zundfolge]

Why are are we even wasting time on this? Nothing more than an exercise in self-flagellation. Total waste of time and thought as it can never happen.

Clearly someone here doesn't understand teh internets.

[Byte Stryke]

If TX wants to go... I say let them. I believe that no state should be held hostage. If they want to go and vote for that, I wish them well.


http://youtu.be/qCLz7XQOIOQ

This video is for comic purposes... Well I know I laughed.

Thank God, for a Moment I thought you had gone 'full retard'

[Ronin13]

Shhhhh don't tell anyone but Colorado is a BLUE state.... mean BLUE BLUE BLUE. State, local (most areas) Governor, Senators and the state legislature... Its more blue than New Jersey [NoEvil]
This is the scary part- hence the reason I've been looking into the housing and job market of Montana. I'd rather not be in the state filled with Prius driving, pot smoking, man-loving, patchouli smelling hippies. :D

[brokenscout]

Agreed with all except the pot smoking...
This is the scary part- hence the reason I've been looking into the housing and job market of Montana. I'd rather not be in the state filled with Prius driving, pot smoking, man-loving, patchouli smelling hippies. :D

[IndustrialRescue]

Lol... Asking Uncle Sam "Pretty please, may we secede?" Is DUMB... The answer is yes, but Uncle Sam WILL kill you. (See: Civil War)

And what a LOT of folks don't realize, is that by signing the petition, they have given the Feds/Big Brother ALL of their personal information (name, address, IP address, etc) AND THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE IT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE SERVER.

DHS, FBI, Big Sister, etc are OVERJOYED! They now have a flawless list of over half a million "right wing extremists" to deal with at their liesure. Thanks to the "patriot" act their beloved republicans wrote, status as any sort of "extremist" means you COMPLETELY waive ALL Constitutional rights.

If you sign, then you are an idiot, and expect to have a visit sometime in the future from Mr. Federal Agent. Or, die in a mysterious car crash.

If you want your state to secede from the union, as it IS the RIGHT AND DUTY of a state to secede, if the Union does not have its interests at heart, then you must convince the Legislature of THAT STATE to DECLARE secession, and then DO IT. And it normally involves rifles.

The petitions are merely an ill guided feel good measure, that is going to get folks a LOT of unwanted attention from Mr. Fed.

[Rust_shackleford]

Lol... Asking Uncle Sam "Pretty please, may we secede?" Is DUMB... The answer is yes, but Uncle Sam WILL kill you. (See: Civil War)

And what a LOT of folks don't realize, is that by signing the petition, they have given the Feds/Big Brother ALL of their personal information (name, address, IP address, etc) AND THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE IT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE SERVER.

DHS, FBI, Big Sister, etc are OVERJOYED! They now have a flawless list of over half a million "right wing extremists" to deal with at their liesure. Thanks to the "patriot" act their beloved republicans wrote, status as any sort of "extremist" means you COMPLETELY waive ALL Constitutional rights.

If you sign, then you are an idiot, and expect to have a visit sometime in the future from Mr. Federal Agent. Or, die in a mysterious car crash.

If you want your state to secede from the union, as it IS the RIGHT AND DUTY of a state to secede, if the Union does not have its interests at heart, then you must convince the Legislature of THAT STATE to DECLARE secession, and then DO IT. And it normally involves rifles.

The petitions are merely an ill guided feel good measure, that is going to get folks a LOT of unwanted attention from Mr. Fed.
Yep

[sniper7]

Shhhhh don't tell anyone but Colorado is a BLUE state.... mean BLUE BLUE BLUE. State, local (most areas) Governor, Senators and the state legislature... Its more blue than New Jersey [NoEvil]

Only because idiots...some even on here are allowing this failure.

[Ronin13]

Lol... Asking Uncle Sam "Pretty please, may we secede?" Is DUMB... The answer is yes, but Uncle Sam WILL kill you. (See: Civil War)

And what a LOT of folks don't realize, is that by signing the petition, they have given the Feds/Big Brother ALL of their personal information (name, address, IP address, etc) AND THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE IT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE SERVER.

DHS, FBI, Big Sister, etc are OVERJOYED! They now have a flawless list of over half a million "right wing extremists" to deal with at their liesure. Thanks to the "patriot" act their beloved republicans wrote, status as any sort of "extremist" means you COMPLETELY waive ALL Constitutional rights.

If you sign, then you are an idiot, and expect to have a visit sometime in the future from Mr. Federal Agent. Or, die in a mysterious car crash.

If you want your state to secede from the union, as it IS the RIGHT AND DUTY of a state to secede, if the Union does not have its interests at heart, then you must convince the Legislature of THAT STATE to DECLARE secession, and then DO IT. And it normally involves rifles.

The petitions are merely an ill guided feel good measure, that is going to get folks a LOT of unwanted attention from Mr. Fed.
I don't think our federal government has the resources to visit approximately 200,000 people (estimated from how many signatures have been received for the various withdraw petitions). And I would hope that when states do finally DECLARE secession, it would want to be done without war... There must be a way to peacefully do it.

[CrufflerSteve]

Only because idiots...some even on here are allowing this failure.

How about the idiots that enabled the failure? The election that gave up the Looper and Bennet had Maes and Buck on the other side. Buck was deeply flawed but probably could count past 10 without taking his shoes off. Maes was a total embarrassment. Fanatical purity on issues can have its place but competence has to figure in somewhere.

The Texans had enough sense to find someone qualified like Ted Cruz.

Steve

[Colorado4wheel]

Can we just vote Florida off. That would make me happy.

[Circuits]

I don't think our federal government has the resources to visit approximately 200,000 people (estimated from how many signatures have been received for the various withdraw petitions). And I would hope that when states do finally DECLARE secession, it would want to be done without war... There must be a way to peacefully do it.

Yes, secession is lawful if congress or a constitutional amendment approves it. The precedent of the Civil War is that unilateral secession is unlawful.

With Dims in power, a TX secession, for instance, might find real favor and support from a Dim congress and white house.

[Circuits]

If this Country were truely free, a state could just walk away. Yet the Confederation of states has been taken over by an over powered central government.

If this country were truly free, a person could just cash in their chips and leave, and not owe taxes on what they earned here?

[Danimal]

Texas has a lot more going for it than most people think. It is completely self-sustainable and is oil and resource rich. It has about 20% of the nations capacity to refine oil and has some of the largest wind farms in the nation. It has open access to water for shipping, and tons of land for agriculture. If they did it right and actually seceded they would be much better off and the rest of the US would be hurting. For a long time Texas has offered business incentives for corporations to develop there pulling the headquarters of a lot of major corporations like AT&T, Dell, Sysco, Exxon Mobil, Halliburton, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Southwest Airlines and so on. Surely their would be greater incentive to for corporations to relocate there when the tax hikes come in for the rest of the country after they are no longer a state.

A small part of me wants to see this happen. It would be the beginning of the end for the USA but we are well on our way down that road anyhow. It will be really interesting when the socialized medicine consequences hit and everyone starts feeling the pain of our government spending as it has. I have family in TX, but personally I would not want to relocate there. I wonder if it would be better to move there and start a new life when they are their own country, or if it would be better to ride this dead horse to the ground and see what comes of it. Either way I think that life is going to get real interesting here over the next few years especially if they get serious about leaving.

[Danimal]

Yeah the government could try to stop them, but I know what it was like when I was in the military, you could not throw a rock without hitting someone from TX. By their nature they have a huge presence in the armed forces relative to to their population and you bet that they will not take it lightly if they are asked to do anything against their home state.

[T-Giv]

When my parents first moved down there to TX they were hesitant about how it would compare to CO. After a few years of where we have been heading they couldn't be happier to be down there.

[TTWHTD]

I don't think our federal government has the resources to visit approximately 200,000 people (estimated from how many signatures have been received for the various withdraw petitions). And I would hope that when states do finally DECLARE secession, it would want to be done without war... There must be a way to peacefully do it.


Maybe not to "visit" each of them personally but it would be interesting to see how many on that list suddenly get beat down with IRS audits next year. It's a little "tin foily" but not totally out of reach.

[CrufflerSteve]

I'll bet whoever created this site has been fired since it is run from the White House. They have to respond but it'll be absolute politician speak, words with no meaning.

Here are all the petitions: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/all/0/2/0/ I voted to "Have President Obama Do The Hokey Pokey".
Here they are by popularity: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions/popular/0/2/0/
In the top ten are two for secession, one for pot and this great one, "outlaw offending prophets of major religions"

Somehow I don't see this being regarding as a great success. I'm tempted to start one stating that in order to increase revenue the ATF should start issuing stamps for machine guns again.

Steve

[Ronin13]

I'm tempted to start one stating that in order to increase revenue the ATF should start issuing stamps for machine guns again.

Steve
Just think of the revenue!! I'd be up for that- and it might drive the prices down on 'em quite a bit! [Beer]

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.

I like this one...

[nynco]

This is the scary part- hence the reason I've been looking into the housing and job market of Montana. I'd rather not be in the state filled with Prius driving, pot smoking, man-loving, patchouli smelling hippies. :D

Montana is one of two states that is currently in the process of making a STATE run single payer healthcare option. OMG its going SOCIALIST... quick get the Depends.

[USAFGopherMike]

Makes me want to start my own country on some island somewhere.. Rules are simple. No government, free market trading economy, no currency, and no liberals. Limited number of residents with equal land rights, 2nd amendment, 1st amendment, and if 50% of the people on the island agree you're a worthless douche, we can vote you off the island. Must have a marketable skill to apply for residency, high school education minimum, must eat meat.

[Ronin13]

Montana is one of two states that is currently in the process of making a STATE run single payer healthcare option. OMG its going SOCIALIST... quick get the Depends.
Well I really have no dog in this fight- I'm a 50%+ Disabled Vet, so I'm technically already under a socialist-esque medical plan- now I have the option to buy my own health insurance in addition to (so I don't have to wait for 2 months to be seen, or have to wait forever for things to process), but with the way healthcare costs are going now, I think I'll just stick with this.

[tmckay2]

Montana is one of two states that is currently in the process of making a STATE run single payer healthcare option. OMG its going SOCIALIST... quick get the Depends.

key word being state run, meaning that people can always leave if they feel they are being unfairly taxed for a BS government program.

[Ridge]

Secession is misspelled in the thread title.

[DOC]

We are just to stupid to stop the Californication of this state by all the people leaving their Liberal Utopia to come here to get away from it only to choke on the sweet air of freedom and are to stupid to stop themselves from introducing the same problems here.

[spyder]

Something else brought up in class today with these petitions... Should you put your name on it? Or could the government, the next time you try to buy a gun say that you tried to renounce your citizenship?

[KevDen2005]

I wouldn't take any of those petitions seriously. I think any Con-Law professor or study of Con-Law would be able to tell you that states have no right to secede. That being said, I am more annoyed with the thread title spelled wrong.

[nynco]

key word being state run, meaning that people can always leave if they feel they are being unfairly taxed for a BS government program.

WE NO SHIT... we got a winner!!!!! It finally got through to one of you right wingers. That is what Obama care is. It is a federal mandate for the states to do something. Its not a federal take over one bit. It is the states who have to implement it in their own way in a given frame work. One that will increase competition in a market that has been run by cartels.

[nynco]

Also this has to be said.... Years ago in a not to distant time. The extreme right wing of America use to tell all the liberals/hippies/anyone who did not believe as they did on things.... oh like Vietnam... what was it? Oh yeah

AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!! oh the irony

[KevDen2005]

WE NO SHIT... we got a winner!!!!! It finally got through to one of you right wingers. That is what Obama care is. It is a federal mandate for the states to do something. Its not a federal take over one bit. It is the states who have to implement it in their own way in a given frame work. One that will increase competition in a market that has been run by cartels.


Giving states power to control anything doesn't give them power to secede. I wasn't sure if you were arguing that or not. I personally think the whole secession talk is pretty ridiculous.

[Rucker61]

Giving states power to control anything doesn't give them power to secede. I wasn't sure if you were arguing that or not. I personally think the whole secession talk is pretty ridiculous.

I think he was pointing out that if a person doesn't like the way that a state runs the medical program, they are free to move to another, more acceptable state.

[nynco]

I do too. I confused your statement with Obamacare. My mistake. I personally think it is dumb. But honestly if TX or the south wanted to strike out on their own... go for it.

[CrufflerSteve]

WE NO SHIT... we got a winner!!!!! It finally got through to one of you right wingers. That is what Obama care is. It is a federal mandate for the states to do something. Its not a federal take over one bit. It is the states who have to implement it in their own way in a given frame work. One that will increase competition in a market that has been run by cartels.

The problem is that they are cartels. I believe health insurance companies were exempted from anti-trust sometimes around 1946. I can look this up if anybody cares. From what I've read of this pile of poop of a plan is that it was mainly a giveaway to these guys. I doubt if the states have the power to unwind this. It has a few features that are sort of populist to make it less raw.

I'm a big believer in free markets but openness and information are required. Asymmetries of power and information wreck this. Assuming I had some money and wanted to get my house remodeled there are sites I can go and publish my specs and contractors will be bidding on that. Good luck getting quotes from docs. They act like you should be grateful that they see you. You only get some info when you are moving into uncovered territory. You see a little more of this open quality in dentists since most people have crappy or no dental insurance.

Steve

[KevDen2005]

I do too. I confused your statement with Obamacare. My mistake. I personally think it is dumb. But honestly if TX or the south wanted to strike out on their own... go for it.


No worries.

I know in England they have an option for socialized health care or you can opt out and buy your own insurance and use doctors of your choice. I am not exactly sure how that works and I am certainly not privy to the fines or punishments by opting out all together. I agree that states have rights but I am a little pessimistic about any state existing that will ultimately opt out, even those who say they will now. I am curious as to what will happen if no states opt out or a few states actually do opt out. I am curious as to what pressures they will get from the government.

[nynco]

The problem is that they are cartels. I believe health insurance companies were exempted from anti-trust sometimes around 1946. I can look this up if anybody cares. From what I've read of this pile of poop of a plan is that it was mainly a giveaway to these guys. I doubt if the states have the power to unwind this. It has a few features that are sort of populist to make it less raw.

I'm a big believer in free markets but openness and information are required. Asymmetries of power and information wreck this. Assuming I had some money and wanted to get my house remodeled there are sites I can go and publish my specs and contractors will be bidding on that. Good luck getting quotes from docs. They act like you should be grateful that they see you. You only get some info when you are moving into uncovered territory. You see a little more of this open quality in dentists since most people have crappy or no dental insurance.

Steve

Agreed

[nynco]

I don't know. But from what I hope will happen out of this is it will weaken the insurance cartels. No doubt the bill is too complicated. It is not what I wanted at all. But we shall see. I do know the current/old system was beyond broke. I also glad that there was language in the bill that allows states to set up their own single payer system should you want to have that rather than being beholden to the cartels. Its not perfect but I hope that it does some good.

And sorry, I will stop replying to the obamacare part. It is not part of this thread and my mistake is crapping up the thread.

[hammer03]

All 50 states have their own petitions now. And Texas is at 104k sigs. In case anyone is keeping score.

Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia and Texas have made it over the 25k threshold for an official response.

[DSB OUTDOORS]

Just Impeach His ASS. New thread started by me. [Coffee]

[Teufelhund]

I wouldn't take any of those petitions seriously. I think any Con-Law professor or study of Con-Law would be able to tell you that states have no right to secede. That being said, I am more annoyed with the thread title spelled wrong.

Really? Can you reference a line in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the secession of any State? Because I can't seem to find one.

[nynco]

Gee why didn't the majority of voters side with the extremist right wingers. I have no clue why[Poke]

[Teufelhund]

Because extreme right-wingers are as crazy as extreme left-wingers, just not quite as stupid.

[nynco]

There are next to no extreme left wingers here in America. You could fit a national communist party meeting in a phone booth. But that does not stop Faux news from scaring the crap out of their viewers about it. Got to have a boogie man right.

[TFOGGER]

You could fit a national communist party meeting in a phone booth. Obama would chair the meeting, Bill Akers could be the Sergeant at Arms.

FTFY

[HoneyBadger]

Shhhhh don't tell anyone but Colorado is a BLUE state.... mean BLUE BLUE BLUE. State, local (most areas) Governor, Senators and the state legislature... Its more blue than New Jersey [NoEvil]


Montana is one of two states that is currently in the process of making a STATE run single payer healthcare option. OMG its going SOCIALIST... quick get the Depends.


WE NO SHIT... we got a winner!!!!! It finally got through to one of you right wingers. That is what Obama care is. It is a federal mandate for the states to do something. Its not a federal take over one bit. It is the states who have to implement it in their own way in a given frame work. One that will increase competition in a market that has been run by cartels.


Also this has to be said.... Years ago in a not to distant time. The extreme right wing of America use to tell all the liberals/hippies/anyone who did not believe as they did on things.... oh like Vietnam... what was it? Oh yeah

AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!! oh the irony


Gee why didn't the majority of voters side with the extremist right wingers. I have no clue why[Poke]


There are next to no extreme left wingers here in America. You could fit a national communist party meeting in a phone booth. But that does not stop Faux news from scaring the crap out of their viewers about it. Got to have a boogie man right.

Stop trying to incite a riot. Your immaturity is showing and it's mildly annoying.

[DOC]

I'm sure there are more left wingers in positions of power to rule over the 99.999% of the rest of the useful idiots.

[Teufelhund]

There are next to no extreme left wingers here in America. You could fit a national communist party meeting in a phone booth. But that does not stop Faux news from scaring the crap out of their viewers about it. Got to have a boogie man right.

I see. So all conservatives are "extreme right-wingers" but unemployed, unproductive, non-contributing Liberals living on the dole and voting themselves largess from the public treasury are. . . what?

[nynco]

No not all the conservatives are extreme right wingers. But the party has lurched so far to the extreme that even Reagan would be considered a RINO.

If you guys had put an Eisenhower Republican (perhaps Huntsman) as your leader, you would not have Obama today. But you chose Romney...

[Teufelhund]

I understand you haven't been around here for a while. Your mistake is thinking all of us here are Romney supporters. There are quite a few of us around who didn't buy into the GOP's bullshit and are still quite aware that your candidate is an incompetent socialist with a proven record of failure. The GOP is largely to blame for the re-election of this turd, and you Liberal morons sped it along.

[nynco]

See I agree with you until.... you launch into the "socialist" demagoguery. Obama is to the right of Nixon on most all core issues.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_electi on_should_teach_the_gop.html

[Teufelhund]

Nixon was a bag of shit. Why do you keep bringing him up as though he's someone any non-liberal holds in high regard? Obama is a fucking socialist. If you don't agree, you need to look the word up and compare it to some of his policies.

[Whistler]

Let's get this back on topic:


He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected. . . . He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone. . . . He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world. For imposing Taxes on us without consent. For depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by Jury. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny.

Sound familiar? Jefferson in support of secession.

Texas v. White (1869) ruled there is no legal right to secession and several states rewrote their constitutions subsequent to the Civil War precluding secession as a condition of suspension of Union military rule. Our country was formed on secession; from Great Britain, from the union created by the Articles of Confederation (only 9 of 13 states had ratified), several states were formed by secession from other states. Secession is an effort to allow multiple majorities to be satisfied where joined only one can be satisfied at a time. It's an attempt to leave peacefully when a large group feels the association is no longer in their best interest, a peaceful alternative to revolution not without precedent. The primary question I hear is one of legality however if you secede are you bound by the legality? Many disagree though it's my opinion the United States was formed as a compact of sovereign States joined voluntarily for the common good. As such I don't perceive it as a "death pact" that once joined can never be parted.

[Ronin13]

See I agree with you until.... you launch into the "socialist" demagoguery. Obama is to the right of Nixon on most all core issues.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_electi on_should_teach_the_gop.html
Let me help you see the light- or at least attempt to, because we all know you can lead a horse to water...
1- "Fair share." This is a neo-socialist term, no ifs, no buts, nothing. Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share, but what's fair? You have some 35% (at last estimate) of Americans on some sort of government handout that have been on it for more than 18mos (no, this is not that 47%).
2- "You didn't build that." Kudos to the GOP for calling this out. Now, I know what Obama really meant by this, and no, he had it backwards- private enterprise creates a need for infrastructure, not the other way around. We wouldn't need roads, bridges, etc. if it weren't for private enterprise, but if they didn't exist, private enterprise still would.
3- "Progressive Socialism" as we're seeing as the neo-democratic ideal now spreading through this country (see: Occupy Movement, and many democrats ideology) is the idea that taking from the wealthy and giving to the needy is right and just. They see it as something that will work because so many people out there are struggling. The problem with this idea is that those who are struggling need prosperous employment. Those that opt not to seek prosperous employment or do not want it should not be encouraged by giving them free money, instead they should see that as "oh crap, I'm going to die if I don't get to work." This is why I'm not against unemployment, but I am against abuse of UI benefits. I'm not against welfare, but I am against abuse of welfare.
4- You keep pointing out terrible examples and continuous blame of Bush. This is why the right is so frustrated with the left. Flat out, and I'm sorry but the truth hurts- you're too damn stupid to see that while yes, recovering from "poor choice policies" like Bush's is not something that happens over night, but by now we should have seen a larger margin of improvement (for reference, take a look at Reagan's first term- by the end of it there was marked improvement). Sorry to bring up Reagan, I know how much you hate him and think he was bad (of course, only the terribly misinformed would actually believe that hostile rhetoric that Reagan cursed our nation).

[KevDen2005]

Really? Can you reference a line in the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the secession of any State? Because I can't seem to find one.


Can you also reference the line that says I should pay for socialized health care. I am sure you probably can't. So the Constitution has been interpreted to say when written and signed that a state may not secede. Once a state has joined there will be no leaving the union. I believe we had a civil war that started about secession.

[Whistler]

Can you also reference the line that says I should pay for socialized health care. I am sure you probably can't. So the Constitution has been interpreted to say when written and signed that a state may not secede. Once a state has joined there will be no leaving the union. I believe we had a civil war that started about secession.

But which act was illegal the secession or the war? I suppose the victor is right? What do you make of the fact the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected language that would allow the use of Union force against a member state for failing to fulfill it's duties under the articles. Or the term "perpetual" was expressly omitted from the Constitution despite much of the Articles of Confederation being copied. If the Second Amendment assures the right of protection from tyrannical government through means of force but not through peaceful secession? The Union was formed by the states for their mutual benefit and was not initially ratified by all thirteen states, it makes no sense they would interpret the use of armed force against a member state that no longer felt they benefited from the union. Having just seceded from a government they considered oppressive it is absurd to consider the framers would have made the very act that allowed the creation of the Union illegal.

[KevDen2005]

But which act was illegal the secession or the war? I suppose the victor is right? What do you make of the fact the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected language that would allow the use of Union force against a member state for failing to fulfill it's duties under the articles. Or the term "perpetual" was expressly omitted from the Constitution despite much of the Articles of Confederation being copied. If the Second Amendment assures the right of protection from tyrannical government through means of force but not through peaceful secession? The Union was formed by the states for their mutual benefit and was not initially ratified by all thirteen states, it makes no sense they would interpret the use of armed force against a member state that no longer felt they benefited from the union. Having just seceded from a government they considered oppressive it is absurd to consider the framers would have made the very act that allowed the creation of the Union illegal.


I would disagree. I think it would still make perfect sense that you have the right to protect yourself and your family. You also have the right to stop a tyrannical government...and to put back in place the system the government is failing to support...secession is not the same thing. I'm also not necessarily arguing one way or the other. But pointing out the difference in protection and secession. Also pointing out in my original response that most Con-Law scholars would agree that once the Constitution was ratified that there would be no leaving the system, even though that thought didn't come until after the civil war.

[Whistler]

Not particularly vehement about it but think it's an interesting discussion. Until 1861 secession was accepted practice and some Con-Law scholars contend secession among the unenumerated or assumed "inalienable" rights. If a person has the inalienable right to control over himself, forced participation in a union he does not consider beneficial is servitude, as such the right to separate is inalienable as well and essential to the protection of other enumerated rights deemed inalienable such as life and liberty.

[KevDen2005]

Not particularly vehement about it but think it's an interesting discussion. Until 1861 secession was accepted practice and some Con-Law scholars contend secession among the unenumerated or assumed "inalienable" rights. If a person has the inalienable right to control over himself, forced participation in a union he does not consider beneficial is servitude, as such the right to separate is inalienable as well and essential to the protection of other enumerated rights deemed inalienable such as life and liberty.


I agree for sure an interesting discussion. I wanted to add, and forgot to last night, that very early case law in the Supreme Court, while the great John Marshall was sitting as chief justice. That case law provides that states are not sovereign. They are recognized as having some government control and some ability to govern themselves, however the Federal government is the governing body overall. There are recognized eras of cooperative federalism, which states get less rights and the federal government controls much more of their ability to funcion (usually around the same period a Supreme Court will more broadly define "Commerce" for more control as well). Then there are eras of dual federalism which gives states more rights to function freely without federal interference (likewise, it isn't uncommon during these eras for the SC to more narrowly define "Commerce" for less federal control). People argue that we are currently in an era of dual federalism coming out of an era of cooperative federalism at the end of 1990's and early 2000's. I would argue that that era is ending and we are rapidly heading towards a cooperative federalism era.

[Teufelhund]

I agree for sure an interesting discussion. I wanted to add, and forgot to last night, that very early case law in the Supreme Court, while the great John Marshall was sitting as chief justice. That case law provides that states are not sovereign. They are recognized as having some government control and some ability to govern themselves, however the Federal government is the governing body overall. There are recognized eras of cooperative federalism, which states get less rights and the federal government controls much more of their ability to funcion (usually around the same period a Supreme Court will more broadly define "Commerce" for more control as well). Then there are eras of dual federalism which gives states more rights to function freely without federal interference (likewise, it isn't uncommon during these eras for the SC to more narrowly define "Commerce" for less federal control). People argue that we are currently in an era of dual federalism coming out of an era of cooperative federalism at the end of 1990's and early 2000's. I would argue that that era is ending and we are rapidly heading towards a cooperative federalism era.

That statement directly contradicts the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The U.S. Constitution is not written in a foreign language or even an archaic version of our own; everything it says is very clear and needs no translation. Allowing it to be interpreted by and bent to the bias of a single person or small group of people without recourse by the People makes that document meaningless.

[KevDen2005]

That statement directly contradicts the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The U.S. Constitution is not written in a foreign language or even an archaic version of our own; everything it says is very clear and needs no translation. Allowing it to be interpreted by and bent to the bias of a single person or small group of people without recourse by the People makes that document meaningless.


I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, merely providing information about a subject that I have done much studying on, and I don't claim to be an expert. But I can tell you that because of the vagueness of the tenth amendment, the justices don't like to use it very often, or without support from other portions of the Constitution, when deciding a case. I haven't done nearly as much research on the 9th, however I beleive that the amendment doesn't really restrict government control. It doesn't give a state, neither does the 10th, any sovereign powers or rights.

[Whistler]

It wasn't intended to grant sovereign powers to the states, they already had them and (imo) did not surrender them as implied by the 9th and 10th Amendments. Yes Justice Marshall ruled time and again in favor of larger, more centralized government and increasing the power of the Fed over the states and people which you would expect as an agency of the Fed. I don't particularly agree with John Marshall's opinion (quoted below) as many of the framers of the Constitution including Jefferson spoke passionately to the opposite. I believe the interpretation is in conflict with the spirit of the Constitution which overwhelmingly is one of self-governance. I also believe it is why the Constitution and it's Amendments clearly limited and delineate the powers of the Federal union as was likewise stated by many of the fine gentlemen who undertook to write it.


"Reference has been made to the political situation of these states, anterior to [the Constitution's] formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true. But, when these allied sovereigns converted their league into a government, when they converted their congress of ambassadors, deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, and to recommend measures of general utility, into a legislature, empowered to enact laws on the most interesting subjects, the whole character in which the states appear underwent a change."

That said I realize there is nothing more than the (legally questionable) actions taken by Lincoln and the decisions of the Supreme Court in their own interest to preclude a peaceful separation and I believe it is a power retained by the people. Allowing the Supreme Court to decide on the issue is a bit like allowing the fox to count the chickens. The people created the union and the people clearly have the right to dissolve it.

Bennett Paterson writes;

“The Declaration of Independence was a forerunner of the Ninth Amendment.”As we have seen, in the context of announcing secession from Great Britain, the Declaration explicitly supports the right to alter or abolish government. To deny this right [secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.

[Teufelhund]

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, merely providing information about a subject that I have done much studying on, and I don't claim to be an expert. But I can tell you that because of the vagueness of the tenth amendment, the justices don't like to use it very often, or without support from other portions of the Constitution, when deciding a case. I haven't done nearly as much research on the 9th, however I beleive that the amendment doesn't really restrict government control. It doesn't give a state, neither does the 10th, any sovereign powers or rights.

I'm obviously no expert either. I like the intelligent discussion though, and we can't have much of that unless we disagree on something. Cheers, friend.

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I think that is pretty clear. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, this specifies no powers of government may be assumed which are not specifically enumerated, nor rights of the people denied by virtue of not being specified. The 9th was a result of statements made by Hamilton and Jefferson in the Federalist Papers, in which they expound upon the issue in more detail than I could ever hope to.

The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is even more clear than the 9th. Any power not specifically granted to Congress by the Enumerated Powers may not be assumed by Congress arbitrarily. This implies State Sovereignty in any matter the authority of which is not specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. This Amendment negates much of the power usurped by the Federal government over the years, and invalidates laws such as the Controlled Substances Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, et al. (I'm sure I'll get some blow back on that last statement from those who believe lawmakers and judges are smarter and maintain a higher standard of ethics than the lowly, common People, but these are foregone conclusions if one has read and understood the aforementioned Amendments.)

[82ndShooter]

I understand you haven't been around here for a while. Your mistake is thinking all of us here are Romney supporters. There are quite a few of us around who didn't buy into the GOP's bullshit and are still quite aware that your candidate is an incompetent socialist with a proven record of failure. The GOP is largely to blame for the re-election of this turd, and you Liberal morons sped it along.

Well said!!!

[KevDen2005]

I'm obviously no expert either. I like the intelligent discussion though, and we can't have much of that unless we disagree on something. Cheers, friend.

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I think that is pretty clear. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase, this specifies no powers of government may be assumed which are not specifically enumerated, nor rights of the people denied by virtue of not being specified. The 9th was a result of statements made by Hamilton and Jefferson in the Federalist Papers, in which they expound upon the issue in more detail than I could ever hope to.

The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is even more clear than the 9th. Any power not specifically granted to Congress by the Enumerated Powers may not be assumed by Congress arbitrarily. This implies State Sovereignty in any matter the authority of which is not specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution. This Amendment negates much of the power usurped by the Federal government over the years, and invalidates laws such as the Controlled Substances Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, et al. (I'm sure I'll get some blow back on that last statement from those who believe lawmakers and judges are smarter and maintain a higher standard of ethics than the lowly, common People, but these are foregone conclusions if one has read and understood the aforementioned Amendments.)


I pretty much agree. I certainly don't agree with NDAA or the Patriot Act at least the majority of those acts. I am somewhat supportive of controlling substances, just not as strict as we make it. I am a firm believer that drugs are part of the demise of society (I used the word "part"). Of course there is the argument of how much better this world might be if we allowed for those heavy drugs to somewhat act as a "chlorine" in our society. I also wouldn't just assume that a sitting member of the any bench is smarter....that is like us giving into complete control.

And of course, I love debates that don't get heated and are intriguing. You make me do my research every time before I post to make sure I stated the right thing. Ha.

[Teufelhund]

I agree there is probably some value in control of certain substances, or at least regulating those things with proven potential to cause harm to those other than those ingesting it. Regardless, it is not authority granted to Congress and is therefore an issue relegated to the individual States.

[Teufelhund]

Perspective: Yeah, it's kinda like that:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/395096_457877990914740_1570173382_n.jpg

[Whistler]

Okay now that's funny! Or sad... now I'm conflicted damn you! [AR15]

[Rucker61]

Perspective: Yeah, it's kinda like that:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/395096_457877990914740_1570173382_n.jpg

There's no "Glory" in this secession.

I saw a comment that signing one of these petitions might be a legally enforceable citizenship resignation. I'll leave it to the legal experts here to comment.

[Whistler]

There's no "Glory" in this secession.

I saw a comment that signing one of these petitions might be a legally enforceable citizenship resignation. I'll leave it to the legal experts here to comment.

No but there is resolve, commitment and sacrifice. A secession by nature is a peaceful proposal of separation when considered can lead to formal recognition of grievances resulting in compromise or opposed can swell into revolution. Neither pretty nor glorious it is indicative of the high price of freedom when one seeks to impose their will on others through force.

I can't comment on the legality of the other though I would not dispute it beyond the capacity of the central government to perceive it as seditious (vs protected free speech) though it's unlikely vindictive redress would be generally well tolerated.

[HoneyBadger]

I received an email from my unit security manager that told us that our security clearances would be revoked if we signed any secession petitions. Also informed us that trying to incite secession could be grounds for other punishment under the UCMJ. Somehow I don't think anyone cares... If you are really going to support this stuff, no threat of clearance revocation is going to stop you.

[Teufelhund]

There's no "Glory" in this secession.

I saw a comment that signing one of these petitions might be a legally enforceable citizenship resignation. I'll leave it to the legal experts here to comment.

I think the mistake a lot of liberal folks are making today is writing off the dissatisfaction that spawned this recent desire for secession as tantamount to a tantrum because the candidate of a certain party lost. In reality, the underlying theme is the realization that a perceptibly socialistic administration has driven our economy, free market philosophy, and inalienable rights toward ineffectuality, and those who recognize the inevitable outcome would rather leave and start over than see it get any worse. It's not bitterness, it is admitting being outnumbered by communists and cutting one's losses. The Glory to be found is in this sentiment from a seemingly forgotten document:

"--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Rucker61]

No but there is resolve, commitment and sacrifice. A secession by nature is a peaceful proposal of separation when considered can lead to formal recognition of grievances resulting in compromise or opposed can swell into revolution. Neither pretty nor glorious it is indicative of the high price of freedom when one seeks to impose their will on others through force.


That was a pun referencing the movie "Glory", in that this movement won't have any black people in it, unlike the movie.

[Teufelhund]

That was a pun referencing the movie "Glory", in that this movement won't have any black people in it, unlike the movie.

http://www.jerzeyric.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Thats_Racist_1-3d_phase.gif#Racist%20gif

[Whistler]

That was a pun referencing the movie "Glory", in that this movement won't have any black people in it, unlike the movie.

I'm not familiar with that movie and have no frame of reference however I will look into. Not sure I get the pun, are you implying a thirst for freedom or the will to attain it is bound by race? Am I to infer dissatisfaction with the current state of the union is purely a middle-aged-grumpy-white-guy-thing? Or are you simply taking the cheap shot at the lack of racial diversity in the painting?

[Rucker61]

I'm not familiar with that movie and have no frame of reference however I will look into. Not sure I get the pun, are you implying a thirst for freedom or the will to attain it is bound by race? Am I to infer dissatisfaction with the current state of the union is purely a middle-aged-grumpy-white-guy-thing? Or are you simply taking the cheap shot at the lack of racial diversity in the painting?

The movie "Glory" focused on a black Union regiment in the Civil War. The unit had white officers and fought to actually fight in battle. The comparison of the Civil War era unit portrayed in the painting to the current secession movement and the likely lack of any black signatories to a secesson pledge was the basis for the play on words.

[Whistler]

The movie "Glory" focused on a black Union regiment in the Civil War. The unit had white officers and fought to actually fight in battle. The comparison of the Civil War era unit portrayed in the painting to the current secession movement and the likely lack of any black signatories to a secesson pledge was the basis for the play on words.

Thanks for the explanation sounds interesting, I'll look for it on Netflix. In that context I grasp the sardonic jest and suspect that image would flop as a PSA as well. :)

That said I'll decline to engage the topic of slavery as emotionally-charged and generally irrelevant to a discussion of the legality and implications of secession.

[Rucker61]

Thanks for the explanation sounds interesting, I'll look for it on Netflix. In that context I grasp the sardonic jest and suspect that image would flop as a PSA as well. :)

That said I'll decline to engage the topic of slavery as emotionally-charged and generally irrelevant to a discussion of the legality and implications of secession.

Sounds good. Here's another pont that came to me during the "Glory" discussion. Texas' current demographics show that non-Hispanic whites make up only 45% of the population. That's likely to have an unintended impact on governance.

[Whistler]

You sure seem hung up on race but I don't think it would be an insurmountable issue in Texas. The large Hispanic demographic has been intrinsic to Texas since it's inception and are well integrated with a long history and deep roots. Most of the Hispanics I knew growing up in Texas considered themselves Texans first, I don't recall significant racial tension between Whites & Hispanics. Obviously there is a sector that fly the Mexican flag, refuse to integrate and display distrust of other races though they are the minority in my experience.

[flan7211]

You sure seem hung up on race but I don't think it would be an insurmountable issue in Texas. The large Hispanic demographic has been intrinsic to Texas since it's inception and are well integrated with a long history and deep roots. Most of the Hispanics I knew growing up in Texas considered themselves Texans first, I don't recall significant racial tension between Whites & Hispanics. Obviously there is a sector that fly the Mexican flag, refuse to integrate and display distrust of other races though they are the minority in my experience.

Dude no tension between whites and hispanics? Dude where were you? All over Texas is tension, at least from what I've seen. California is worse. God going into the wrong Target you get some weird looks depending on race. California is the next Kosovo JMHO.

[Rucker61]

You sure seem hung up on race but I don't think it would be an insurmountable issue in Texas. The large Hispanic demographic has been intrinsic to Texas since it's inception and are well integrated with a long history and deep roots. Most of the Hispanics I knew growing up in Texas considered themselves Texans first, I don't recall significant racial tension between Whites & Hispanics. Obviously there is a sector that fly the Mexican flag, refuse to integrate and display distrust of other races though they are the minority in my experience.

Hung up? I wouldn't think so, given the makeup of my own relations. However, I would surmise that the folks who have signed the secession petitions to leave a country led by a Democratic president with a Democratically controlled Senate would be largely white, and might not be happy with the government that might result in a country with a non-white majority.

[Whistler]

Dude no tension between whites and hispanics? Dude where were you? All over Texas is tension, at least from what I've seen. California is worse. God going into the wrong Target you get some weird looks depending on race. California is the next Kosovo JMHO.

I grew up on the Gulf Coast between Houston & Galveston. Admittedly it's been 8 years or so since I've spent much time there but growing up I never had any problems with any Hispanics outside of gangs (well except a "disagreement" over a pool game once but that's another story). Our neighbor was Hispanic, the most tension we ever had was teasing him about his grand pecan orchard scheme, when I joined the Navy they were still spindly and only about 6' tall. I worked in construction and in the ship yards, the only tension I saw was mutual between assholes. Maybe it was just me, I get along anyplace not overrun by yuppies & Liberals.

[DOC]

If they weren't white and people of all colors who didn't like the direction that the country was going. Would that be ok?
That's what I see happening.