Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

States having the right to secede

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Supreme Court aside; do you think the States have a right to secede, why or why not?

Remember the Supreme Court is irrelevant in this particular discussion, because interpretations change when the oligarchy is past to a new generation of justices. I want to hear your views on the subject, not what the Federal Government tells you to think about the topic.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:45:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

how was it taken illegitimately? And do the people of Hawaii really want to leave? Honestly?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:46:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally think that the only way it should happen is if you get a 75% majority vote on it by the state. Then MAYBE.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:47:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:45:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

how was it taken illegitimately? And do the people of Hawaii really want to leave? Honestly?

The queen was deposed by wealthy American investors, who formed an oligarchy of whites to rule Hawaii, and later applied for annexation against popular consent.

And probably not, but public opinion has nothing to do with what rights exist.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:48:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:47:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:45:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

how was it taken illegitimately? And do the people of Hawaii really want to leave? Honestly?

The queen was deposed by wealthy American investors, who formed an oligarchy of whites to rule Hawaii, and later applied for annexation against popular consent.

And probably not, but public opinion has nothing to do with what rights exist.

And let's not forget the States which make up the Mexican Cession.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:49:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:48:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:47:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:45:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

how was it taken illegitimately? And do the people of Hawaii really want to leave? Honestly?

The queen was deposed by wealthy American investors, who formed an oligarchy of whites to rule Hawaii, and later applied for annexation against popular consent.

And probably not, but public opinion has nothing to do with what rights exist.

And let's not forget the States which make up the Mexican Cession.

Well, if it really matters that much to you, at least think of how much better off those states are than if they had stayed with Mexico.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:51:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.

In order to justify the social contract theory, the individuals involved would have had to actually sign/help make the "social contract"....

I would rather debate the legitimacy of the social contract theory honestly, but it would have to wait til I'm finished with my monarchy debate :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:53:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:49:46 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:48:48 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:47:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:45:22 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

how was it taken illegitimately? And do the people of Hawaii really want to leave? Honestly?

The queen was deposed by wealthy American investors, who formed an oligarchy of whites to rule Hawaii, and later applied for annexation against popular consent.

And probably not, but public opinion has nothing to do with what rights exist.

And let's not forget the States which make up the Mexican Cession.

Well, if it really matters that much to you, at least think of how much better off those states are than if they had stayed with Mexico.

Very true, but that doesnt change the fact that they were acquired illegitimately. Of course, the people who lived there during that time are long gone, so I suppose my argument isn't very sound in that respect.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:54:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do we not hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or that to secure these rights, governments are institued among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government? And most of all, that should government become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to amend or abolish it?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:51:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.

In order to justify the social contract theory, the individuals involved would have had to actually sign/help make the "social contract"....

The Constitution has little to do with social contract. The states of literally ratified and agreed lol. Texas begged to join us. Mexican cession, Louisiana Purchase, Oregon Territory were all bought or won through war, thus being nation possessions with no initial autonomous rights.

The argument that "no one signed anything" won't quite hold here.

I would rather debate the legitimacy of the social contract theory honestly, but it would have to wait til I'm finished with my monarchy debate :)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:57:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:55:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:51:28 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.

In order to justify the social contract theory, the individuals involved would have had to actually sign/help make the "social contract"....

The Constitution has little to do with social contract. The states of literally ratified and agreed lol. Texas begged to join us. Mexican cession, Louisiana Purchase, Oregon Territory were all bought or won through war, thus being nation possessions with no initial autonomous rights.

The argument that "no one signed anything" won't quite hold here.

I would rather debate the legitimacy of the social contract theory honestly, but it would have to wait til I'm finished with my monarchy debate :)

Yeah, you make a good point there. I suppose the difference lies in you (seemingly) viewing states as owned by governments as opposed to peoples.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 6:59:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't believe in inalienable rights. The further away you get from interactions between individuals the tougher it is to apply traditional moral theories given the anarchic system of international relations/balance of power and just how states interact with each other and what constitutes aggression.
wmpeebles
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 7:24:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First of all, what compelling reason would a state need to secede from the Union in modern times? If any state government had growing sentiment against the national government, many other states would probably be feeling the same thing as well. I think if that happened there would be more states seceding from the Union and forming a new United States than there would be left over from the old Union. But this would all depend on how badly the US would screw itself over.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 7:29:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.

Didn't I disprove this already? 4 states specifically reserved the right to secede as part of their ratification document if the Fed wasn't up to snuff for their people. And not only that, but practically all states thought they had the right to secession. It was a commonly held belief.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 7:37:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 7:29:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.

Didn't I disprove this already? 4 states specifically reserved the right to secede as part of their ratification document if the Fed wasn't up to snuff for their people. And not only that, but practically all states thought they had the right to secession. It was a commonly held belief.

Of course, I am not saying the CSA should've won the war (it aggressed against the USA), nor am I saying states should be allowed to secede no problem (jury's out on that for me), but what I AM saying is that the CSA was within its right, at least initially. Besides, they probably would've come crawling back to us in the end, anyway.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 7:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 7:29:42 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:49:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/5/2012 6:44:09 PM, thett3 wrote:
Being allowed to join an organization (in this case the Federal Government) and never being allowed to leave is unjust. Particularly for states such as Hawaii, which were taken illegitimately.

Contracts bind organizations to form singular entities. The Constitution is a contract, and all states that ratified it effectually signed for perpetual unity. The States we gained our U.S property and subject to rule by the Constitution.

Actually, didn't we agree to debate this before? It could be fun, even though its my 4th time making this argument.

Didn't I disprove this already? 4 states specifically reserved the right to secede as part of their ratification document if the Fed wasn't up to snuff for their people. And not only that, but practically all states thought they had the right to secession. It was a commonly held belief.

That's not quite accurate. Prior to the Constitution, as you are aware, the 13 states signed and ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union unconditionally. When the articles were found to create a powerless federal government, the Constitution was ordained to strengthen the power of the center,...to make the perpetual union already established by the Articles " more perfect".

Then your proof is within the ratification documents, but if memory serves, I recall reading that those had no bearing or legislative power in regards to the union or the Constitution. They were merely "suggestions" like the amendments some states accompanied with their documents. Some were disregarded, others were considered.

The most fatal mistake the drafters made was forgetting to carry the words "perpetual union" from the Articles into the Constitution.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 7:58:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Depends whether they plan to violate the rights of others.

States in actual history, including all 50 present State governments, do, so they don't have any rights.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 8:16:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Perpetual simply meant that there was no set end date. It did not mean that the sates could never leave.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 8:19:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 8:16:12 PM, mongoose wrote:
Perpetual simply meant that there was no set end date. It did not mean that the sates could never leave.

Que semantics argument.....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 8:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 6:38:50 PM, DanT wrote:
Supreme Court aside; do you think the States have a right to secede, why or why not?

Remember the Supreme Court is irrelevant in this particular discussion, because interpretations change when the oligarchy is past to a new generation of justices. I want to hear your views on the subject, not what the Federal Government tells you to think about the topic.

I think they do. There are very few states that could truly survive on their own. Vermont almost could except they have no way of protecting themselves.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 8:58:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The constitution mentions how new states may enter the union, but makes no mention of how they may leave; it doesn't give the power to the federal government nor prohibit the states from seceding.

In other words, states have a 10th amendment right to secede
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 8:58:09 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution mentions how new states may enter the union, but makes no mention of how they may leave; it doesn't give the power to the federal government nor prohibit the states from seceding.

In other words, states have a 10th amendment right to secede

Correct.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - The Tenth Amendment

The power to secede is not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution, and is therefore, by the Tenth Amendment, reserved to the States.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:19:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 8:58:09 PM, DanT wrote:
The constitution mentions how new states may enter the union, but makes no mention of how they may leave; it doesn't give the power to the federal government nor prohibit the states from seceding.

In other words, states have a 10th amendment right to secede

The last thing you want to do, I think, when supporting a state's right to secede, is cite the Constitution. The Constitution is the very document, nay, contract through which these 50 states our bound to one indivisible union.

If you and several others donate a plank to build a house, then at no point can you reclaim or modify that plank since you relinquished ownership of it, long ago. Ratifying the Constitution was the equivalent of relinquishing total autonomy, for partial autonomy. Since the Constitution does not specify when this agreement will end, that autonomy belongs to the nation of the United States until both the United States and the State in question agree to change it.

If you give your book to someone, unless you said you intended on taking it back, or you agreed on a set time you would take it back, that book belongs to the person you gave it to until you can both agree on its return.

Then there's the argument that secession is the foundation of anarchy, but I won't get into that now.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power." - Thomas Jefferson, 1804
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:24:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"...Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?...The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Thomas Jefferson, 1803
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:27:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Reasoning, I love this country to death, but we're notorious for hypocrisy. A quote of what some founders once said neither legitimately support nor refute the arguments made here. You would have to reference U.S law to make any kind of argument in support of secession.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:30:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 9:27:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
Reasoning, I love this country to death, but we're notorious for hypocrisy. A quote of what some founders once said neither legitimately support nor refute the arguments made here. You would have to reference U.S law to make any kind of argument in support of secession.

It's pretty clear that under the Tenth Amendment, the States have the right to secede.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - The Tenth Amendment

Unless you'd like to show me where the right of secession is delegated to the United States or prohibited to the States by the Constitution.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just once again throwing my opinion out there:

I dont feel that the legality of secession has ever actually been debated. The Texas V. White ruling was made immediately after a war fought to preserve the Union. If the court hadn't ruled the way they did, all those lost lives would've been for naught and all the judges knew it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right