26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358So what if it was. The Founding Fathers certainly could have cared less what the British crown thought. Fortunately for them, they were in a position to revolt. Compare that to China where all one can do is stand in front of a line of tanks in protest.
So while a state could not join the union without the consent of itself AND the other states, what happens if one of the two sides (the state itself or, for whatever reason, the union itself) withdraws or reverses consent? In virtually every other field of human endeavor, that signifies an ending of the agreement. I know you are saying, "Everybody knew this wasn't so." But I doubt the understanding was as unanimous as you suggest.[/b]
I realize that to secede is mere fantasy based upon the powers that be, unless the system collapses, which it very well may.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by whodeyIf I may ask - and after your recent repeated remarks ruing the fall of Gadaffi I feel I need to - in the Chinese protester "in front of a line of tanks" situation, would you be supporting the Chinese government's tanks or would you be supporting the protester? Just to be clear.
Fortunately for them, they were in a position to revolt. Compare that to China where all one can do is stand in front of a line of tanks in protest.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358Your assertion in the last paragraph simply isn't so; try to unilaterally "reverse your consent" to your mortgage agreement.
You are making good points. However, what about this:
"The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the authority of the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 within the applicable Northwest Territory as constitutional in Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82, 96, 97 (1851), but did not extend the Ordinance to cover the respective states once they were admitted to the Union."
...[text shortened]... new this wasn't so." But I doubt the understanding was as unanimous as you suggest.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFWho do I support? I support his right to protest. As for what his protest is all about, that depends on what it is.
If I may ask - and after your recent repeated remarks ruing the fall of Gadaffi I feel I need to - in the Chinese protester "in front of a line of tanks" situation, would you be supporting the Chinese government's tanks or would you be supporting the protester? Just to be clear.
By in large the voices of individuals are drown by collectivists. The smaller and more local the representation, the greater the representation. In a centralized beast all one can do is stand in front of tanks.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by whodeyYou have dodged the point blank question. Here it is once again: in the Chinese protester "in front of a line of tanks" situation, would you be supporting the Chinese government's tanks or would you be supporting the protester?
Who do I support? I support his right to protest. As for what his protest is all about, that depends on what it is.
By in large the voices of individuals are drown by collectivists. The smaller and more local the representation, the greater the representation. In a centralized beast all one can do is stand in front of tanks.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by FMFIt depends on what he is protesting about.
You have dodged the point blank question. Here it is once again: in the Chinese protester "in front of a line of tanks" situation, would you be supporting the Chinese government's tanks or would you be supporting the protester?
26 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyOK, well then, if your own citing China had no relationship with the actual event you seemed to me referencing and no other discernible meaning of any kind, fair enough.
It depends on what he is protesting about.
If, say, the Confederate States of America's military had had tanks, and slaves had been standing in front of a line of them, protesting against their slavery, would you have backed the protesters or would you have backed the CSA and its tanks?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358The reason there are no penalties for secession (we are talking about US history as precedent, right?) is that there is no such thing as secession. The proper term for such an event is rebellion, even if it is called secession by the rebels. There are demonstrably penalties for rebellion.
Anyway, the penalties for breaking a mortgage agreement are clearly laid out in the contract.
What are the penalties for secession, no1m? Where are they laid out? Perhaps they are not laid out because there aren't any.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by JS357But that's contradictory to the notions of liberty that we all hold dear. Our union is a voluntary association of free, democratic states. Since a state joins voluntarily and since no penalty for leaving was stated - why would a state not be allowed to leave? Where is the precedent or custom for such an arrangement? It is not at all obvious to me.
The reason there are no penalties for secession (we are talking about US history as precedent, right?) is that there is no such thing as secession. The proper term for such an event is rebellion, even if it is called secession by the rebels. There are demonstrably penalties for rebellion.
26 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358What was the penalty John Brown received for taking up arms against the legally constituted authorities?
Anyway, the penalties for breaking a mortgage agreement are clearly laid out in the contract.
What are the penalties for secession, no1m? Where are they laid out? Perhaps they are not laid out because there aren't any.
The Constitution has an entire section saying the States can't do things. No specific penalties are indicated. So according to your "logic" that section is a nullity.
EDIT: Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Now suppose a State lays a duty of tonnage for example contrary to the Constitution. Suppose they insist on collecting it even after the SCOTUS says it is plainly unconstitutional. Is it your assertion that there is no remedy for this Constitutional breach because no specific penalty is laid out?
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358Our Union was formed by the People, not the States. Only the People together can dissolve it by either amendment or a new Constitutional Convention. The Union is, as stated, "perpetual" unless the People decided to take one of those courses of action.
But that's contradictory to the notions of liberty that we all hold dear. Our union is a voluntary association of free, democratic states. Since a state joins voluntarily and since no penalty for leaving was stated - why would a state not be allowed to leave? Where is the precedent or custom for such an arrangement? It is not at all obvious to me.
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderJohn Brown was free to leave the union if he chose -- freer than New York in that regard.
What was the penalty John Brown received for taking up arms against the legally constituted authorities?
The Constitution has an entire section saying the States can't do things. No specific penalties are indicated. So according to your "logic" that section is a nullity.
EDIT: Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Proh ...[text shortened]... t there is no remedy for this Constitutional breach because no specific penalty is laid out?
The other things you mention are prohibited acts which States agreed not to do when they signed on. So they knew about those. The States could not remain IN the union and defy its provisions -- we agree there.
But since a penalty for leaving is nowhere mentioned, a State might assume that they could leave. You say States should have known or assumed that they never could leave the union, that other bills, articles, of the time had such language. I guess I would have assumed, not seeing it in front of me when I signed, that that language did NOT apply because it had been removed.
See where I am coming from?
26 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, I'm sure that if Texas were to leave, they would assume that the remaining States would remain in a "perpetual" union as long as they liked -- Texas's actions would not affect the others.
Our Union was formed by the People, not the States. Only the People together can dissolve it by either amendment or a new Constitutional Convention. The Union is, as stated, "perpetual" unless the People decided to take one of those courses of action.
But can the people of Arkansas and Oklahoma and New Mexico prevent the people of Texas from doing as they please?