Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
they specifically wrote that in MO RON. they didn't leave it to interpretation. So why didn't they put in secession if it was so important to them?
Erasing history...
- Thread starter Gilligan
- Start date
they specifically wrote that in MO RON. they didn't leave it to interpretation. So why didn't they put in secession if it was so important to them?
Secession is s state's right, Mo. States expressly have/retain ALL rights that are not otherwise specifically granted to the Federal government. It's a really, really long list, Mo. See how that works? There were a very few overt restrictions placed on the Federal governmnt, via the amendments, just to make damned sure there was no Federal overreach.
Constitution expressly defines Federal power and Constitution expressly limits it too. See how that works?
Last edited:
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
bwhahahahahaha
so guns were important enough for the founders to make an amendment for, but secession wasn't.........
you are going to need to do better than that
Exactly. You might start to understand this at some point.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
bwhahahahahahaha
well there you have it. Secession was not important enough to the founders for them to include in the constitution, but Gilligan swears its a right
This_person
Well-Known Member
Well, we decided 18 is no longer young and dumb, but of sufficient age to be responsible for one's actions. But, yes, freedom into entering into contracts like that.
Now, we discussed ad nauseam the act of who should register for marriage, but we never discussed recently why the state got involved in the first place. The small petty perks were put in because of the stability the institution of marriage used to allow for in a society. Like charitable organizations or property mortgage interest tax exemptions, the lower tax rates for some married people was intended to positively influence people to get married, providing more of that stability.
So, yes, I would say whether it is a contract you have with a roofing company to do work for money, or with your neighbors in an HOA, or whatever, if you want to believe the contract means something and you can count on contracts once they're written, then you have to make it difficult to get out of them.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, do you think the states have the right to limit your keeping and bearing arms so long as the federal government does not? Just curious, since you specifically said the founders "limited the power of the Federal government."
I don't think the states have the right to secede without the express permission of the other states. One cannot leave a contract without permission of the other parties to the contract, why would this one be different? If they do leave without permission (don't live up to the agreement), then someone must mediate/adjudicate the dissolution. It's not just a "right" to leave whenever. Nothing anywhere in legal documents implies that. Not even the 10th, because the tenth is to allow doing things while covered under the Constitution - you leave, you're not covered, so that doesn't make sense to be a "right" to leave at all.
And what if you believe the other parties are not living up to it and not being honest enough to correct? Do you just put up with them or say, "#### you.... Bye!"
This_person
Well-Known Member
You worded that correctly ("if you believe").
I think I answered that part, though: If they ... don't live up to the agreement, then someone must mediate/adjudicate the dissolution.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Wow, you're going way out there. If Florida secedes, it breaks all ties with the US federal government, and they essentially form their own country per se. The land still exists as it stood before, only now they are not longer part of the United State. That's how you seceded without forming a new state. If you want to call it a 'state', that's fine, but it is no longer part of the U.S. nor any of its jurisdictions.
What Art IV is saying is you cannot take parts of neighboring states to create a new state. You can't take part of Maryland and Virginia and form the state of Midnightrider; without consent of those two states and the federal congress. Now D.C. is its own territory and could become a state.
Secession is a complete break any authority within the territories of the United States. Certainly this country could, as Lincoln did, violate states rights and the constitution, and prevent a state from seceding. But that's a violation of the constitution.
Last edited:
Who?..ole MR?? LMAO..he's always "way out there". That's his shtick..his act. "Mr. Obtuse Guy".
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Well, if you have speech and guns, that puts me in a bit of a jam if I wanna tell you to sit down, shut up and not let you leave, don't it?
Kinda.
littlelady
God bless the USA
That is hilarious that you call other members retarded. There are, actually, retarded (as in disability) people in the world, so it is really not that hilarious. First, you need to look in the mirror, and, second, you need to develop better argument skills. You are welcome.
This_person
Well-Known Member
So, do you think the states have the right to limit your keeping and bearing arms so long as the federal government does not? Just curious, since you specifically said the founders "limited the power of the Federal government." [emphasis yours]
Restitution
New Member
WOW!!! This tread went majorly off the rails.....
From erasing history with monument removal to secession from the union. Well, I guess when you cannot make a logical point about the topic at-hand, change the topic right?
From erasing history with monument removal to secession from the union. Well, I guess when you cannot make a logical point about the topic at-hand, change the topic right?
I didn't say that. The founders did. ;-)
I see that rat hole you are busy digging over in yonder weeds. Not today, sport,,,not today.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I'ts not a rat hole, it's a point towards the flaw in your logic. If the Constitution ONLY limits the federal government, and the tenth amendment gives the states the rights that are not specifically limited to the federal government per the tenth, then the states can restrict keeping and bearing all they want - they can stop your free speech, they can enslave people for dying their hair blue (which would be fine with me as a means to stop that crap), etc., etc.
You're trying to make a point that the states have rights because it is only the federal government limited by the constitution, and I'm pointing out that's not exactly accurate. There's no stated path for secession, and the previous document that formed the union (previous to the document that formed a more perfect union) said, "perpetual" with respect to being a state in the country.
:shrug:
While neither of us nor anyone in this conversation is the authoritative expert, it seems reasonable to me to think it was meant as a "forever" kind of deal, or that the other states would have a say in a state leaving (in the same manner as an amendment being ratified).
Who said something silly like that?
This_person
Well-Known Member
You did:
In response to:
Now, you're putting me in the horrifically unenviable position of being on the same side of a disagreement with MR. Just typing that made me throw up a little bit.