The Constitutional Case for Constitutionally Valid Secession

#76
#76
volprof said:
If they can beat big, bad brother, then they win.

Look, I don't think this is anything we're going to solve on VolNation. It's a very complex question.

I just think that, typically, strong nations keep one another in check. Small, divided ones stand the risk of getting ran over. Of course this doesn't always prove the case in reality.
Click to expand...

The US kept the USSR in check? How so?

Did the USSR keep the US in check? Again, how so?

Oh, wait, when the three most powerful nations in the world were Britain, France, and Germany, they kept each other in check, right? Except for all those pesky little wars and that whole debacle called colonization...
 
#77
#77
The Ron Mexico said:
There will be zero states secede from the Union. It's a moot point (a cow's opinion). They are all too afraid of cutting the Federal umbilical cord that has supplied them with pork money for decades.
Click to expand...

You used to have a good avatar. You lost your avatar and your mind.
 
#79
#79
therealUT said:
I disagree, but then again, I don't see 'tacit consent' as a coherent concept. Many do think 'tacit consent' is a coherent concept, and they would be absolutely on board with your argument. However, the same principle is easily applied to subjects of governments and their 'acceptance' of certain statutes: e.g., if you were against legislation to prohibit the sales of firearms, why did you continue to pay state taxes, obey state speed limits, etc.? Explicit consent is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...

the is an argument destined to circle the drain, and I don't really agree with the stuff I am saying. just playing devil's advocate.

it sounds like what you are saying that with explicit consent, as the constitution is written now, you could secede from your state as it is, because you didn't agree to one thing that invalidates the whole government. (maybe i misinterpreted your post but seems to your argument defeats itself.) If you want to play the game you got to the follow the rules. If you don't like the rules don't play the game, you don't get to pick and choose.
 
#80
#80
Grand Vol said:
lulz

Commentary: Democrats spoke of secession in 2004 after Bush was re-elected - Texas on the Potomac



And these things obviously couldn't have been made possible by a State...



Yeah, those darn people just need to shut up!

20071018_declaration.jpg
Click to expand...

yeah lets not forget the rebellions they had put down back then. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. seems the founding fathers were willing to repress their citizens when a minority didn't agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#81
#81
LouderVol said:
the is an argument destined to circle the drain, and I don't really agree with the stuff I am saying. just playing devil's advocate.

it sounds like what you are saying that with explicit consent, as the constitution is written now, you could secede from your state as it is, because you didn't agree to one thing that invalidates the whole government. (maybe i misinterpreted your post but seems to your argument defeats itself.) If you want to play the game you got to the follow the rules. If you don't like the rules don't play the game, you don't get to pick and choose.
Click to expand...

From what I could gather, TRUT was speaking to the rights given the states by the constitution, so it's a bit of a stretch to try to negate it based on individual rights--which were not given by the constitution.
 
#82
#82
also yes a lot of the thing the feds provide the states couldn't afford. one real easy example is the interstate system, the feds pay the states to maintain it. CDC and FDA come to mind too. and what happens to the economy when all the sudden transportation companies have to pay to cross kansas? or is kansas going to be a good guy and just not tax imports, check passports or any of that stuff. it wouldn't be the end of the US but even one state leaving would have profound ramifications on what the rest of the US means. Look at the confederates trying to make treaties with foreign countries (france and Britain) that were specifically anti-American. and if multiple states become multiple new nation states that complicates the matter 100 fold.
 
#83
#83
LouderVol said:
also yes a lot of the thing the feds provide the states couldn't afford. one real easy example is the interstate system, the feds pay the states to maintain it. CDC and FDA come to mind too. and what happens to the economy when all the sudden transportation companies have to pay to cross kansas? or is kansas going to be a good guy and just not tax imports, check passports or any of that stuff. it wouldn't be the end of the US but even one state leaving would have profound ramifications on what the rest of the US means. Look at the confederates trying to make treaties with foreign countries (france and Britain) that were specifically anti-American. and if multiple states become multiple new nation states that complicates the matter 100 fold.
Click to expand...

The state or group of states would either become a sovereign nation, or a confederated sovereign nation with its own federal taxes. It could support its own infrastructure, probably much better and more efficiently than the currently bloated federal gov't.

Boo hoo at complicating things politically. Perhaps the Federal government should get back to representing its citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#85
#85
Orange_Crush said:
The state or group of states would either become a sovereign nation, or a confederated sovereign nation with its own federal taxes. It could support its own infrastructure, probably much better and more efficiently than the currently bloated federal gov't.

Boo hoo at complicating things politically. Perhaps the Federal government should get back to representing its citizens.
Click to expand...

that last sentence I couldn't agree with more, but too bad neither a R run government or a D run government gives two craps about the people. unless you count corporations as people then yeah both the Rs and Ds do care about 'people'.

if the states actually thought they could operate in the black, they would have seceded long ago. this romanticism of the state run government needs to stop, they suck almost as bad as the feds, and its only because they can only screw up one state that they don't look worse than the feds. as long as it is only a two party system, and both sides only vote their party nothing; individual states, a collective of states or these United States, is going to operate well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#86
#86
The people who talk about this are disenfranchised loudmouths. The true power brokers in any given state, even where the whining is most vitriolic, would never come remotely close to doing it. Some of their puppet politicians might have to pay it lip service, to keep the Tea Party types mollified. But as soon as the speech was over, they'll be slinging back a whiskey with staff, mocking the hoots and hollers they got with that line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
lawgator1 said:
The people who talk about this are disenfranchised loudmouths. The true power brokers in any given state, even where the whining is most vitriolic, would never come remotely close to doing it. Some of their puppet politicians might have to pay it lip service, to keep the Tea Party types mollified. But as soon as the speech was over, they'll be slinging back a whiskey with staff, mocking the hoots and hollers they got with that line.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Soviet Union and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia also thought secession would never happen to them either.
 
#92
#92
Sandvol said:
Did you read the content of the study? Why don't you expound on it?
Click to expand...

The bottom line is the states that you hold to be liberal provide more (not less) federal taxes per capita than the state that you hold to be more conservative. Doesn't that counter your idea that the liberal states are a drag on federal programs like welfare?
 
#93
#93
Danl said:
The bottom line is the states that you hold to be liberal provide more (not less) federal taxes per capita than the state that you hold to be more conservative. Doesn't that counter your idea that the liberal states are a drag on federal programs like welfare?
Click to expand...

No genius that's not the bottom line. You didn't even look at the study but just based your opinion on the article. By the way, I didn't make that claim I just commented on someone else's post.
 
#94
#94
Sandvol said:
No genius that's not the bottom line.

Yes, doofus. It is.

You didn't even look at the study but just based your opinion on the article. By the way, I didn't make that claim I just commented on someone else's post.
Click to expand...

You agreed with the other doofus' stupid assertion. Own it.
 
#95
#95
Danl said:
You agreed with the other doofus' stupid assertion. Own it.
Click to expand...

You're a mountain of intellect aren't you? If you read how the study was conducted it included only federal employees per capita and money going from the Federal Government directly to the state treasuries. Welfare paid directly from the Federal Government to the people is not included. This article has zero merit. Do you know which states have the highest poverty rates in the U.S? Genius!
 
#96
#96
Sandvol said:
You're a mountain of intellect aren't you? If you read how the study was conducted it included only federal employees per capita and money going from the Federal Government directly to the state treasuries. Welfare paid directly from the Federal Government to the people is not included. This article has zero merit. Do you know which states have the highest poverty rates in the U.S? Genius!
Click to expand...

The fact is the big bad blue states pay the way for the smaller red states. You can try to dance and spin all you want, but that's the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#97
#97
Danl said:
The fact is the big bad blue states pay the way for the smaller red states. You can try to dance and spin all you want, but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

That isn't a fact. The big bad blue states are bankrupt.
 
#98
#98
Listen, if that's true then you shouldn't have a problem with CC's plan. Right?
 
#99
#99
Danl said:
The bottom line is the states that you hold to be liberal provide more (not less) federal taxes per capita than the state that you hold to be more conservative. Doesn't that counter your idea that the liberal states are a drag on federal programs like welfare?
Click to expand...

So against my better judgement I browsed the study behind the article. A couple of red flags jumped out. First, it ranks the District of Columbia as the least reliant on federal funding. I mean come on, we all know DC is just one massive government handout sinkhole. It also appears the study counts military. Bases are in red states for obvious reasons (liberals don't sign up to defend the country). Also, I couldn't determine if they're counting social security. That shouldn't count because in theory, they're only drawing benefits they paid in (and who would blame them for wanting to retire in an efficiently run state).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top