Black college student hangs Confederate Flag in his dorm room

[OC for ME]

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

How about if you're a Muslim?

You're always a Muslim.

Maybe an apostate Muslim, but still a Muslim.

That is a good analogy of how the Fed feels about seceding states. But raises the question at stake here in the idea of secession don't you have the right not to be a Muslim anymore if you don't want to be? Even if others in the faith don't recognize your severance of ties with that faith?

And as brought out it is spelled out in the Muslim faith that once a Muslim always a Muslim there is no "perpetual" wording in the constitution for a state remaining a state.

 

[OC for ME]

Once a Muslim always a Muslim....really?

According to who?

The fella who decided to not be a Muslim anymore and become a Christian? (for example)

Or

The folks he no longer chooses to associate with?

Not very liberty centric and rights respecting on this particular topic....are we?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I love watching Christians argue over who is a Christian, and who is not a 'true Christian', and who is really a Muslim.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

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.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

I was referring to this: http://usconstitution.net/articles.html
Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Followed by the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union

 

[OC for ME]

The Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution, obviously. The AoC ceased to exist once the Constitution was adopted. Article 13 I think.

 

[Tawnos]

The Articles of Confederation are not the Constitution, obviously. The AoC ceased to exist once the Constitution was adopted. Article 13 I think.

Obviously, but the line of reasoning in Texas v. White holds.
To wit:

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?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

 

[OC for ME]

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.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

I can't find the link in this thread. Can you repost?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

There are no case law to support it, and perpetual isn't in the constitution. The phrase "more perfect union" is stretching it to mean it means perpetual. If I join the carpenter's Union, they may have a similar phrase with rules I have to abide by while a member this doesn't mean I can never leave the union and have to still follow the union rules.

If a court case was to specifically involve secession without rationalization or stretching words of the constitution it would be recognized as legal. I think this is why they never have addressed secession specifically except as dicta in a case about other matters. Such as Texas vs. White.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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

But there are many others Judge Andrew Napolitano's book Dred Scott's Revenge, Who killed the constitution by Thomas E. Woods and Kevin R.C. Gutzman. And a few others.

The way I look at the union as designed was sovereign states who give up a limited amount of power to further a larger goal of protecting liberty, and free trade. I think though what muddles the picture a bit is some wording in the 14th amendment. And the fact that most the states are now derived from or got there start from U.S. territory. But the original 13 were all Britain's territory at one time.

So I would argue that the original wording of the declaration of independence of breaking political ties, was well understood by all who ratified the constitution and it would apply to the individual states and why Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island made the authority to secede a part of their ratification.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

And you keep missing the point that the states didn't confederate while part of the U.S. they left first.
You have not proved anywhere that it is a ''myth". No where in the constitution does it say they can't leave and it isn't "implied" either by "perfect union" that is what is called grasping at straws to rationalize or justify a belief or view point.

Was slavery an issue indeed it was. It wasn't why the war was fought though, the north could care less, it was about federal control as you have argued very well for the federal position on it.. It is a control they took and then painted history to make it look "legal" it is the continued actions they do now with, commerce and general welfare clauses.

Let's not forget that New England was in the process of secession at one time too, so much of the northern states knew it was a power they had too, not one to be taken lightly but one they had.

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

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

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

 

[Brass Magnet]

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

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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

Good points. And why need to repeal the 16 and 17th amendments. The States which created the Federal government, no longer has a say in the Federal government. Repeeling these amendments would limit the funds of the government and give the state legislature a representation in D.C.