Erasing history...

[This_person]

We differ on what the responsibilities of membership are. If You join my club with the understanding we go to church every Sunday, play by all the rules, don't drink or play rock and roll and then find we go to church on Sundays to play Slayer and drink all the communion wine and then some and make up our own rules, how long are you truly obligate to stay in that club? The South joined a white supremacy group where you could own other people and no one could stop you. It was a core, backbone of their society, biblically based and supported. They felt that that was being rescinded.

Well, we both know that's not all - big straw that broke the camel's back, but certainly not all. But, the way it was to be fixed by members of the group was to control the rules in the Senate. They lost, and started their own country. But, that's certainly not the point I'm trying to make at all. I'm not trying to re-litigate the Civil War; I'm trying to speak in broader terms. But, if you insist on the Civil War, wouldn't it have been better for them to come to a viable solution instead of killing hundreds of thousands of people in the divorce?

 

[Midnightrider]

So, you don't really believe in states rights. Is it specifically enumerated in the constitution that states MUST remain in the union?

You're saying it's not in the constitution that states can secede. This is expressly why the 10th was written.

"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."

Those powers are delegated to the fed under Article IV.

Obvious? Ok, how?

Doesn't the Constitution covering admission imply de-admission? Further, within the Constitution, same part, is the path to sub-divide the states. So, if, say, Western Maryland can, per the Constitution, join West Virginia or Pennsylvania, that is secession of a kind, yes?

the civil war set the precedent that a state can not secede. I though that was pretty obvious :shrug:

 

[This_person]

Would you enlist for a "life-time?"

Did you ever register under a different party?

No to both. But, I'm not a "lifer" for party affiliation.

I'm also not a state joining a country.

I'm divorced (and remarried), and feel the divorce was one of the larger hypocritical things I've ever done. I do not favor it, and though the bible supports the reason for my divorce, I still feel I should have at least tried harder. I will not, under virtually any circumstance, divorce my wife, and that's because I promised in front of God, family, and friends I would stay with her. When a state joined the Union, I feel it was the same.

 

[This_person]

You should read up on the history of the ratification process. Some southern states were barely talked in to ratifying the Constitution and did so very reluctantly and with serious reservations. They were more or less assured that "if you find you don't like it, you can always leave". Not 75 years before they went ahead and did just that.

I thought everyone knew that.

"barely talked into" sounds a lot like "kinda pregnant" to me. :shrug: You joined, or you didn't.

 

[Larry Gude]

the civil war set the precedent that a state can not secede. I though that was pretty obvious :shrug:

Fair enough. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from.

Now, how is it forbidden? For the federal gummint to declare it so is not the final word on it. Agreed? It's not mentioned in the Constitution, agreed? And thus left to the states?

Whatever answer you come up with, if we agree it's at odds with the DoI, our national mission statement, I don't think we can ban leaving the union anymore than we can take the vote away from women or return people to slavery.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm divorced (and remarried), and feel the divorce was one of the larger hypocritical things I've ever done. .

Why?

 

[This_person]

Doesn't the Constitution covering admission imply de-admission?

How? In a weird way, that's like saying dying implies the ability to come back to life later - it does not, not at all. Your independence as a separate nation dies when you joing a new nation.

Further, within the Constitution, same part, is the path to sub-divide the states. So, if, say, Western Maryland can, per the Constitution, join West Virginia or Pennsylvania, that is secession of a kind, yes?

No, that's a modification of state lines. And, it takes the legislatures of the states "as well as of the Congress." So, not even close.

But, the argument in my opinion would be, what did the states think at the time they joined the union? Asked previously was whether I'd joined a party and did I think I could leave it. I certainly have joined clubs and such, and all of those had clear ways of expelling or allowing members to leave. We have none. Additionally, the Articles of Confederation called the union of the states "perpetual" - no inference needed: you are joined for good. The Constitution was written and ratified "in order to form a more perfect union" of the states, implying the concept of "perpetual" remained.

In my humble opinion, the only way a state is able to leave is if it never ratified the constitution or asked to be entered in as a new state. Once entered in, it's in.

 

[This_person]

Whatever answer you come up with, if we agree it's at odds with the DoI, our national mission statement, I don't think we can ban leaving the union anymore than we can take the vote away from women or return people to slavery.

After the DOI, our stated reason for leaving, we established a union twice. Those are the documents of importance.

 

[This_person]

Why?

Because I promised in front of God, family, and friends I would maintain that union. Good biblical reason or not, I did not stay. That's an amazing failure. Legal, but not right.

 

[Gilligan]

the civil war set the precedent that a state can not secede. I though that was pretty obvious :shrug:

And many legal scholars and historians believe that what Lincoln did to oppose those secessions was not legal/constitutional.

 

[Midnightrider]

Fair enough. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from.

Now, how is it forbidden? For the federal gummint to declare it so is not the final word on it. Agreed? It's not mentioned in the Constitution, agreed? And thus left to the states?

Whatever answer you come up with, if we agree it's at odds with the DoI, our national mission statement, I don't think we can ban leaving the union anymore than we can take the vote away from women or return people to slavery.

You said yourself that the fact that they addressed admission implies that they are addressing leaving too. I think you are right in that they are saying the power for those decisions resides with the union and not the individual states.

And many legal scholars and historians believe that what Lincoln did to oppose those secessions was not legal/constitutional.

precedent, look it up

 

[Larry Gude]

You said yourself that the fact that they addressed admission implies that they are addressing leaving too. I think you are right in that they are saying the power for those decisions resides with the union and not the individual states.

Ah, oh, so, I'm making the argument that it's up to the other members if I may join and thus it's up to them if I may leave? That's not what I meant. What I meant was if I ask, and the group accepts, I still reserve the right to leave of my own accord.

No?

 

[Larry Gude]

How? In a weird way, that's like saying dying implies the ability to come back to life later - it does not, not at all. Your independence as a separate nation dies when you joing a new nation. .

That's non sense. Death is death. It's a construct to argue you can't leave once you've joined. Of course you still can physically leave.

 

[Larry Gude]

Because I promised in front of God, family, and friends I would maintain that union. Good biblical reason or not, I did not stay. That's an amazing failure. Legal, but not right.

So, there is no acceptable reason to consider that agreement, that oath violated by the other party? Or they you?

 

[PsyOps]

Those powers are delegated to the fed under Article IV.

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

 

[This_person]

That's non sense. Death is death. It's a construct to argue you can't leave once you've joined. Of course you still can physically leave.

Physically? Is the state going to up and move to the Southern Hemisphere?


Death is death - fully agree. The death of the independent state once it asks to no longer be independent.

 

[This_person]

So, there is no acceptable reason to consider that agreement, that oath violated by the other party? Or they you?

Of course. Divorce is the larger violation of the oath, of course. But, even with a violation of the oath, it is incumbent to try and reconcile. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that spouses long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

You know what I mean?

 

[Larry Gude]

Physically? Is the state going to up and move to the Southern Hemisphere?


Death is death - fully agree. The death of the independent state once it asks to no longer be independent.

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.

 

[Larry Gude]

Of course. Divorce is the larger violation of the oath, of course. But, even with a violation of the oath, it is incumbent to try and reconcile. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that spouses long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

You know what I mean?

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

 

[Larry Gude]

Of course. Divorce is the larger violation of the oath, of course. But, even with a violation of the oath, it is incumbent to try and reconcile. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that spouses long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

You know what I mean?

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?