OC for ME
Regular Member
Obviously some folks will still call you a Muslim regardless of what you call yourself now.Not if you go and chose to be something else. Muslim once, Christian now....not a Muslim anymore.
Obviously some folks will still call you a Muslim regardless of what you call yourself now.Not if you go and chose to be something else. Muslim once, Christian now....not a Muslim anymore.
How about if you're a Muslim?
You're always a Muslim.
Maybe an apostate Muslim, but still a Muslim.
there is no "perpetual" wording in the constitution for a state remaining a state.
There is such wording in the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution says "in order to form a more perfect Union", clearly referring to those words.
The Constitution in this instance is referring to the Federal Government. There is nothing in the line you provided that refers to a State, or the States. **Well, it is implicative. "Union" as plural.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
They are right, there is nothing in here that refers to a perpetual state.
The Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution, obviously. The AoC ceased to exist once the Constitution was adopted. Article 13 I think.
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Obviously, but the line of reasoning in Texas v. White holds.
To wit:
That is pure rationalization to justify their position. The constitution does not say a state cannot leave the union it really is that simple.
Perpetual was deliberately left out. 3 states have the right to secession in their ratification of the new constitution.
Texas vs White was not a case about secession, there have been no court cases dealing with secession and on purpose. All that wording does is show a political position of a court from the winning side of a war, I highly would suspect the bias of that court.
Read the link I provided from a constitutional lawyer and many other constitutional lawyers agree. He mentions Texas vs White and shows the contradiction the judges made in their own dicta.
That is how I read it. The winners view. Even their judgment on the disposition of the bonds seemed a little fishy, since they justified their judgment based on their bogus view about the perpetual state.
Did you notice the almost total lack of cites to case law regarding the bonds. Heck they didn't even try to use case law to support the perpetual state reasoning.
I can't find the link in this thread. Can you repost?
This guy breaks it down well. http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html
As much as that guy likes to write, he misses and does not address that the constitution specifically prohibits states from joining confederations. Note that the states remained the same states they were before, with the same political bodies, but merely formed a confederation of those states and declared it a new government, separate from the US. Moreover, based on the constitution the states may not, without consent of congress, keep troops, ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, etc. The states all did this. You can pontificate all you want about how "a state that secedes is not bound by that clause" but that's certainly stretching the plain intent that the states which join the united states are bound to the united states and cannot form their own government of other states. Texas v. White speaks to that, but this is a specific limitation on the powers of states, enumerated within the constitution, and thus under the 10th amendment, within the realm of federal control.
The fact is, the states acted to form a confederation without constitutional power to do so. They built up troops, took land from the united states, and acted in a manner that was clearly insurrection (yet another thing placed under federal control, though yes, Lincoln should have gone through Congress to suppress the insurrection).
They did so because of an in a manner that reaffirms they wanted to maintain the right to slavery. States' rights/powers/whatever were not what was at stake here, else their confederacy would have been governed significantly differently in its constitution.
With that, I'm done with this topic. You can go on believing the myth of southern secession and states' right to do so, but even a cursory reading of the constitution shows it is not in their power to do so.
that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the right of the people 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.
declaration of independence
Yep the very founding of our country is based on the principles of secession.
Not only that but the country was built on the principle of "bottom-up" government. The people created the states and the states, through the people, created the federal government. The most power was always meant to be in the hands of the people. The states, being closest to the people have more power than the federal government.
Government's sole legitimate purpose is to secure the rights of the people. There wouldn't be any reason to form a government otherwise.
It seems more like common sense than anything that the states and the people maintain the power to secede.
Did they enter into a binding contract? Yes, or at least those not including secession clauses did, but a contract broken by either side is no longer a contract. The wronged party has a right to nullify it and/or to restitution. If the Federal governments judges get to decide who wins, it's pretty obvious who they'll pick.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk