Erasing history...

[This_person]

No. A piece of paper, the agreement, the terms and conditions, those are physical things representing the membership of a state in the union. Those physical things can be ended. Moved on to something else.

Only when mutually agreed upon. As with any contract - for there to be an end to the contract, the contract itself must have the terms of exit established, or, the injured party may litigate. Mr. Lincoln litigated, and I believe it is still today something that is not allowed. Should a state PETITION to secede, and the same types of ratification for allowing the state to enter or amending the Constitution were to apply to allow the state to leave as an agreed action, then I believe it should be acceptable for the state to leave.

 

[This_person]

I totally agree. All I was asking was whether or not individuals, in your view, should be able to reach and end, irreconcilable differences.

Same answer as above - when mutually agreed upon through litigation. That's not to say that both sides have to agree to everything, that's to say there need be a senior authority (such as the court system) to allow it or adjudicate it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Same answer as above - when mutually agreed upon through litigation. That's not to say that both sides have to agree to everything, that's to say there need be a senior authority (such as the court system) to allow it or adjudicate it.

Are you in favor of it requiring adjudication to be married?

 

[This_person]

Philosophical question; should marriage, something young, inexperienced people can very readily and easily enter into, be as hard to get into as it is to get out of? Or, conversely, should divorce be as easy as marriage?

Freedom dictates that such a contract should be easy to enter if two consenting adults agree to enter it. Exiting it should be difficult, or the stability of the system around it falls into question. Thus, it is up to society to stress the importance of the contract the two young people enter - or old people enter. Divorce, in my opinion, should be much more difficult to attain than it is today, or prenuptial agreements written as part of a marriage certificate - one or the other. We either say contracts mean little (prenuptial agreements a standard part of the certificate process), or, we say contracts mean something (divorce exceptionally difficult to obtain, short of proof of physical or mental abuse).

 

[This_person]

Are you in favor of it requiring adjudication to be married?

We don't require adjudication of entering contracts unless they are likely to form monopolies that affect the larger nation. I do not see what would be adjudicated.

 

[Gilligan]

Freedom dictates that such a contract should be easy to enter if two consenting adults agree to enter it. Exiting it should be difficult, or the stability of the system around it falls into question. Thus, it is up to society to stress the importance of the contract the two young people enter - or old people enter. Divorce, in my opinion, should be much more difficult to attain than it is today, or prenuptial agreements written as part of a marriage certificate - one or the other. We either say contracts mean little (prenuptial agreements a standard part of the certificate process), or, we say contracts mean something (divorce exceptionally difficult to obtain, short of proof of physical or mental abuse).

Fortunately, it has become less difficult to get divorced in MD. Bunch of archaic laws finally changed.

 

[Larry Gude]

Freedom dictates that such a contract should be easy to enter if two consenting adults agree to enter it. Exiting it should be difficult, or the stability of the system around it falls into question. Thus, it is up to society to stress the importance of the contract the two young people enter - or old people enter. Divorce, in my opinion, should be much more difficult to attain than it is today, or prenuptial agreements written as part of a marriage certificate - one or the other. We either say contracts mean little (prenuptial agreements a standard part of the certificate process), or, we say contracts mean something (divorce exceptionally difficult to obtain, short of proof of physical or mental abuse).

So, freedom going in, never mind how young dumb and full of...beans but, the moment you enter into it, you now owe society and must seek it's approval to exit.

 

[Midnightrider]

Art IV says nothing about secession. It doesn't even infer anything about secession.

it is about States and membership in the union.

Id say this part here might apply:

.....nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

how do you secede without forming a new state? the entire premise of secession is that you want to become a sovereign state.........

Even if you choose not to read it that way, it shows that the fed has some say in this area.

 

[Gilligan]

“Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . .” (J. Madison/T. Jefferson)

Seems pretty clear what the framers thought about states sovereignty.

 

[Midnightrider]

Seems pretty clear what the framers thought about states sovereignty.

interesting that they didn't include that in the section of COTUS on how to secede from the union :shrug:

 

[Gilligan]

interesting that they didn't include that in the section of COTUS on how to secede from the union :shrug:

How is that "interesting"? The entire purpose of the Constitution is/was to limit and enumerate the powers of the Federal government.

There was discussion about including something that specifically prohibited secession by states. Madison made sure it was not included.

 

[Midnightrider]

BTW, shouldn't you old bigots be doing something about your own instead of biatching about monuments being taken down? You dummies haven't even started a thread on the SD shooting yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/us/san-diego-shooting/

 

[Midnightrider]

How is that "interesting"? The entire purpose of the Constitution is/was to limit and enumerate the powers of the Federal government.

which makes it even MORE interesting that the founders chose not to address peacefully leaving the union if a state wanted.

 

[Gilligan]

BTW, shouldn't you old bigots be doing something about your own instead of biatching about monuments being taken down? You dummies haven't even started a thread on the SD shooting yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/us/san-diego-shooting/

Whose "own" would that be, Mo? Beer drinkers?...

 

[Gilligan]

which makes it even MORE interesting that the founders chose not to address peacefully leaving the union if a state wanted.

Nope. You big gummint types always have it backwards.

 

[Midnightrider]

Whose "own" would that be, Mo? Beer drinkers?...

yeah, I didn't expect any intellectual honesty from you anyway

 

[Midnightrider]

Nope. You big gummint types always have it backwards.

bwhahahaha


the founders wanted to keep the fed from taking our guns, what did they do?

if they wanted a system through which states could come and go they would have set that up. That is if that is what they wanted.

 

[Gilligan]

yeah, I didn't expect any intellectual honesty from you anyway

You need to be even more vague and obtuse so we can understand your questions better.

 

[Gilligan]

bwhahahaha


the founders wanted to keep the fed from taking our guns, what did they do?

i

Exactly, Mo-Ron. They limited the power of the Federal government. Got any more gems like that one? I bet you do.

 

[Wishbone]

interesting that they didn't include that in the section of COTUS on how to secede from the union :shrug:

They didn't include a section on felons eligibility to hold office either... Seems they had more faith in their descendants than was warranted.