Succession Threads: Merged

[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.