Will Bush be rated one of the worst presidents?

[SamSpade]

Using that logic our secession from Great Britain would be illegal and any Constitution derived from obtaining our independence would be illegal, correct?

Yes - and no.

Let's put it this way. You're a guest at my house (I hate using these, because SOMEONE gets all worked up over precision in metaphors). You ask my permission to leave, and I refuse. You go out the door anyway.

Someone asks "did you have Sam's permission?". Of course you didn't. You left anyway, but you don't go around saying you received it.

Of course it was "illegal" to break away from England. It's not as though countries have gentleman's agreements on how to conduct wars. It's not a country club affair.

Texas vs. White makes it clear enough that states did not enter into something like a marriage with the rest of the United States, free to legally separate at will. Not any more than St Mary's county has the legal right to separate from the rest of Maryland. The counties have separate laws and governments, but it doesn't make them a loose confederation. They're bound, and according to the Constitution, states are as well, forming a perpetual union.

 

[Ken King]

I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.

Virginia and New York made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

Virginia - "We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes".

 

[thatguy]

But according to Texas vs. White - that's not the case.

If we're going to look at whether or not they had the "legal" or Constitutional right to secede, no, they did not. If we want to look at whether or not they had any God given right to secede, that's another matter.

The Supreme Court said, no they didn't, this is why. It's not THAT long, and most of the stuff we're talking about starts around the 98th clause.

and vrai, here is a hint for you;
prohibition was deemed unconstitutional
not letting women vote, unconstitutional


see where i am going with this?

it was and always was, even though a law was passed that permitted it.....

 

[SamSpade]

I have no doubt that if a state today wanted to, by veto proof popular demand, a state could secede, legally.

Supreme Court would declare such law unconstitional - therefore, illegal.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

Yes - and no.

Let's put it this way. You're a guest at my house (I hate using these, because SOMEONE gets all worked up over precision in metaphors). You ask my permission to leave, and I refuse. You go out the door anyway. What a terrible analogy...

Someone asks "did you have Sam's permission?". Of course you didn't. You left anyway, but you don't go around saying you received it.

Of course it was "illegal" to break away from England. It's not as though countries have gentleman's agreements on how to conduct wars. It's not a country club affair. That was seen, by all sides, as a rebellion, as an act of defiance. The South saw secession as a a gentleman simply choosing to quit his membership in a club. The North tended to see it as rebellion BY SUBVERTING the will of the people within the state. Most people of the day thought secession was fine. Peaceful secession. That's why Davis and Lincoln went to such great, agonizing lengths to avoid throwing the first punch.

Texas vs. White makes it clear enough that states did not enter into something like a marriage with the rest of the United States, free to legally separate at will. Not any more than St Mary's county has the legal right to separate from the rest of Maryland. The counties have separate laws and governments, but it doesn't make them a loose confederation. They're bound, and according to the Constitution, states are as well, forming a perpetual union.

St. Mary's could leave the state if they chose to just as I could choose to renounce my citizenship. It would be HIGHLY impractical and hugely difficult and VERY unlikely to be approved by the people, but they could do it.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

Supreme Court would declare such law unconstitional - therefore, illegal.

...what law? Secession is not a law; it would be the will of the people. Granted, as I say, it would be prohibitively daunting to achieve, but, it could be done.

 

[vraiblonde]

Also, a Supreme Court decision does not equal constitutional law. The Dred Scott decision is a good example. It was a court opinion, not constitutional law because nowhere in the Constitution does is say that blacks are property and have no rights. In fact, the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision constitutionally.

By your reasoning, Sam, the 14th Amendment says that blacks are citizens, and the 13th Amendment says that slavery is prohibited; so it must be that blacks were *always* citizens and slavery was *always* prohibited, and that is simply not true.

 

[SamSpade]

...what law? Secession is not a law; it would be the will of the people. Granted, as I say, it would be prohibitively daunting to achieve, but, it could be done.

(sigh)

The question has been raised repeatedly, did they have the LEGAL RIGHT to secede? Was it Constitutional? And I have supported my argument with the SCOTUS case Texas vs. White, gave a link, saying, NO, it is not Constitutional, therefore - no, not 'legal'. (Will SOMEONE read this?)

You may be able to get every last person in the county to petition for secession, but it won't make it legal. If they have to amend the Constitution to do so - THEN - it will be. It isn't now, and it still isn't.

Anyway, I have to leave my desk for the day.

 

[Larry Gude]

...

(sigh)

The question has been raised repeatedly, did they have the LEGAL RIGHT to secede? Was it Constitutional? And I have supported my argument with the SCOTUS case Texas vs. White, gave a link, saying, NO, it is not Constitutional, therefore - no, not 'legal'. (Will SOMEONE read this?)

You may be able to get every last person in the county to petition for secession, but it won't make it legal. If they have to amend the Constitution to do so - THEN - it will be. It isn't now, and it still isn't.

Anyway, I have to leave my desk for the day.

I am not arguing what White said in 1868. I am stating that 1868 is not 1860, so, it was NOT settled at that point. If it had been settled, it would have initiated secession at that point because the right to secession was a commonly accepted right in all of the South and much of the North.

 

[Larry Gude]

Here's a land mine...

...for Sam tomorrow;

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

And this;

The Declaration of Independence


Paragraph one.

 

[thatguy]

...for Sam tomorrow;

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And this;

The Declaration of Independence


Paragraph one.

a revolution while always an option is completely different than legally seceding. and you will notice, the only legal option noted was with the approval of the group....

 

[Larry Gude]

a revolution while always an option is completely different than legally seceding. and you will notice, the only legal option noted was with the approval of the group....[/

...right, which I listed in my post about secession being an option for a state or county.

 

[thatguy]

...right, which I listed in my post about secession being an option for a state or county.

sorry for the confusion, but the supreme court only allowed legal secession through approval of the group (of states party to the contract, not the group of people wanting to secede)

 

[Larry Gude]

...

sorry for the confusion, but the supreme court only allowed legal secession through approval of the group (of states party to the contract, not the group of people wanting to secede)

...right. As I say, it wouldn't be easy.