Succession Threads: Merged

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.