Constitutional Question: Can states secede? Ron Paul's view?
- Thread starter rodent
- Start date
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
Bush would call them terrorists and would probably go in with full force
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
hm yeah. The fed doesn't want any strains in the status quo
james1906
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,616
Hawai'i has an active independence movement, of course the MSM doesn't cover it. Hawai'i was an internationally recognized nation until the US took it. Alaska also has an active independence movement. There's also a concept called the nation of Cascadia, roughly consisting of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.
And don't forget Texas, the right to secede was a requirement for statehood.
And don't forget Texas, the right to secede was a requirement for statehood.
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
where can I sign up? I like joining secession movements
I used to be apart of one for a new Confederacy lol (no slavery) and I'm a senator in a micronation
james1906
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,616
JosephTheLibertarian
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 10,522
Last edited:
Dustancostine
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,735
Maybe, It depends on which state. I would like to see them try to invade Texas.
katao
Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 702
And that would bring rebellion throughout the land.
Unlike Lincoln's age, there is no animosity like that between the North and South, or the divisiveness of slavery to feel justified in the murder of secessionists. And they certainly didn't have 500 channels of TV or YouTube to watch the bloodshed of their brothers in real time.
a_european
Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
- Messages
- 175
Of course they can!
This was no question until Lincoln declared otherwise. He saved the union physically by destroying its spirit.
lewrockwell.com has in its archieve a big Lincoln section. I recommend to read it.
This was no question until Lincoln declared otherwise. He saved the union physically by destroying its spirit.
lewrockwell.com has in its archieve a big Lincoln section. I recommend to read it.
It would seem to be, unless you are catholic like Rudy, that if you are in a Union, you can get a divorce. This would be especially true if one side does not fill it's contractual duties. Otherwise there is no incentive to fulfill those contractual duties.
But that's only in theory. In practice, a seceding state will be bombed.
But that's only in theory. In practice, a seceding state will be bombed.
I believe Alaska has it on their ballot each election (someone correct me if I am wrong)....I was told it was a part of their acceptance to the Union to have the option to cede.
If the "cessation" folks wanted to have something they would be wise to do it in Alaska which is aprox. half the size of the lower 48 and has a whole bunch of resources to be a wealthy nation on its own.
If the "cessation" folks wanted to have something they would be wise to do it in Alaska which is aprox. half the size of the lower 48 and has a whole bunch of resources to be a wealthy nation on its own.
RonPaulStreetTeam
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 609
I would like for us in California to leave the US and give them back Arnold
The socialists would destroy California in less than a year without federal funds.
David Merrill
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 117
You touch upon the very nature of the Emergency. This emergency was amplified in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act coming to term (20 years) in 1933.
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/Merrill_FR_Bulletin_March_1933.jpg
Franklin Delano ROOSEVELT would never have been able to take a war measure like the Trading with the Enemy Act and revise the enemy to be US citizen if he had no war power of Executive Order. It was the emergency of 1861 that created Executive Order. The emergency by simple definition is that no state or confederacy of states can secede from the Union.
Very likely, it was international banking interests knowing that Honest Abe was considering ending the Emergency at the end of the hostilities that caused his assassination. I can provide ample evidence, pragmatic and circumstantial. I enjoy some of the more esoteric explanations around secret societies because they stir more emotional Internet discussion.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_signs2.jpg
Note the symbolism characterized by Napoleon - the right hand in the vest...
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_signs.jpg
And Skull and Bones William Jefferson CLINTON showing that same symbol when with Beatrice of Orange - the Bloodline of the Merovingian kings.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Masons_in_Cabinet_1933.jpg
And when a suitor/court of competent jurisdiction setoff a million $ mortgage, the facades fell away. He quickly uncovered the receivership of the US in bankruptcy...
"Deutsche Bank National Trust Company" aka Dutch Robbels Bank of the Netherlands aka Dutch East Indies Trading Company aka British East Indies Trading Company - Patroon claim to Manhattan Island in perpetuity.
Regards,
David Merrill.
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
It looks like people arguing that secession is protected by the Constitution are only considering the Constitution as it existed prior to the Civil War. Clearly they are right, the right to secession originally existed, via the 10th amendment. But the 14th amendment came after, and as a result of the Civil War, and as I mentioned earlier, one of its effects would be to render subsequent secession unconstitutional.
Johnnybags
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,126
I once heard only Texas can legitamately
secede, something about when they joined the union it was written into their constitution. Of course the first state that actually does it, I am there. Now, I think that a brave governor outta begin talk of it that if the US government spends one dime on or talks about the NAU, its automatic that if they try to merge the three in any way the state is now independent. A triggering event should be in law already. Also a technical succession could be done by simply using a competing hard asset based currency. That takes all the Washington rape of your dollar out.
secede, something about when they joined the union it was written into their constitution. Of course the first state that actually does it, I am there. Now, I think that a brave governor outta begin talk of it that if the US government spends one dime on or talks about the NAU, its automatic that if they try to merge the three in any way the state is now independent. A triggering event should be in law already. Also a technical succession could be done by simply using a competing hard asset based currency. That takes all the Washington rape of your dollar out.
Daveforliberty
Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 372
Not so fast...
I posted this in another thread. I am reading "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar. I have only read about 75 pages so far, but this caught my eye:
Page 33: "Although the States would enter the Constitution as true sovereigns, they would not remain so after ratification. The formation of a "more perfect Union" would itself end each state's soverign status and prohibit future unilateral secession..."
Pages 34-35: "Simply put, Article VII recognized the soverign right (or at least the soverign power) of different states in a flawed confederacy to their separate ways, but articles V and VI extinguished the right and power of unilateral secession for each state populace that joined the Constitution's new, more perfect union, thereby merging itself into the continental soverignty of the American people.
Anti-Federalists across the continent got the message and sounded the alarm. In Massachusetts, Samuel Nasson pointed to the Preamble as proof that the Constitution would effect a "perfect consolidation of the whole Union" that would "destroy the Bay State's status as "a soverign and independent" entity... New York's Brutus complained that the Constitution would not be "a compact" among states but rather would create a "union of the people of the United States considered" as "one great body politic."...
...Patrick Henry, true to form, was one of the bluntest of all as he led the charge against the Constitution in Virginia... "The question, Sir, turns on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America."...
Page 36: But on the fateful question of whether states would continue to be truly soverign, with rights of unilateral exit, the Federalists agreed that the Anti-Federalists had not exaggerated... Madison at Philadelphia stressed that one of the essential differences between a "league" and a "Constitution" was that the latter would prevent subunits from unilaterally bolting whenever they became dissatisfied...
Hamilton/Publius in The Federalist No. 11 spoke of the need for a "strict and indissoluble" union...
Page 36-37: Pennsylvania's Wilson contrasted traditional "confederacies" that istorically "have all fallen to pieces" with the proposed Constitution, in which "the bonds of our union" would be "indissolubly strong." Samuel Johnston declared that "the Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union."...
Page 37: In Virginia, the distinguished legal scholar George Wythe forcefully explained what was at stake, blending language from the Declaration (which he had signed in 1776), and the Preamble. "To perpetuate the blessings of freedom, happiness, and independence", Americans must form "a firm, indissoluable union of the states" and thereby avoid "the extreme danger of dissolving the Union."
Notably, Virginia's convention spoke of the right of the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia, to reassume power through future acts of popular soverignty..."
What's the bottom line? It sounds like the founders ruled out secession. What does it mean to us?
1) Elect Ron Paul and the argument is put on hold indefinitely
2) Failing that, keep the freedom movement alive and reclaim our Republic and our Constitution
3) Failing that, the People of the United States rise up and throw off the tyrants
I posted this in another thread. I am reading "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar. I have only read about 75 pages so far, but this caught my eye:
Page 33: "Although the States would enter the Constitution as true sovereigns, they would not remain so after ratification. The formation of a "more perfect Union" would itself end each state's soverign status and prohibit future unilateral secession..."
Pages 34-35: "Simply put, Article VII recognized the soverign right (or at least the soverign power) of different states in a flawed confederacy to their separate ways, but articles V and VI extinguished the right and power of unilateral secession for each state populace that joined the Constitution's new, more perfect union, thereby merging itself into the continental soverignty of the American people.
Anti-Federalists across the continent got the message and sounded the alarm. In Massachusetts, Samuel Nasson pointed to the Preamble as proof that the Constitution would effect a "perfect consolidation of the whole Union" that would "destroy the Bay State's status as "a soverign and independent" entity... New York's Brutus complained that the Constitution would not be "a compact" among states but rather would create a "union of the people of the United States considered" as "one great body politic."...
...Patrick Henry, true to form, was one of the bluntest of all as he led the charge against the Constitution in Virginia... "The question, Sir, turns on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America."...
Page 36: But on the fateful question of whether states would continue to be truly soverign, with rights of unilateral exit, the Federalists agreed that the Anti-Federalists had not exaggerated... Madison at Philadelphia stressed that one of the essential differences between a "league" and a "Constitution" was that the latter would prevent subunits from unilaterally bolting whenever they became dissatisfied...
Hamilton/Publius in The Federalist No. 11 spoke of the need for a "strict and indissoluble" union...
Page 36-37: Pennsylvania's Wilson contrasted traditional "confederacies" that istorically "have all fallen to pieces" with the proposed Constitution, in which "the bonds of our union" would be "indissolubly strong." Samuel Johnston declared that "the Constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, it would be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and withdraw itself from the Union."...
Page 37: In Virginia, the distinguished legal scholar George Wythe forcefully explained what was at stake, blending language from the Declaration (which he had signed in 1776), and the Preamble. "To perpetuate the blessings of freedom, happiness, and independence", Americans must form "a firm, indissoluable union of the states" and thereby avoid "the extreme danger of dissolving the Union."
Notably, Virginia's convention spoke of the right of the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia, to reassume power through future acts of popular soverignty..."
What's the bottom line? It sounds like the founders ruled out secession. What does it mean to us?
1) Elect Ron Paul and the argument is put on hold indefinitely
2) Failing that, keep the freedom movement alive and reclaim our Republic and our Constitution
3) Failing that, the People of the United States rise up and throw off the tyrants
mconder
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,492
Didn't one of the founders say when a Government has become too oppressive it is the right of people to break from the chains of oppression and form a new Government?
It's in the Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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.
It's in the Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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.
Similar threads
