Home Non Cigar Related
Options

Secede

Comments

  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    Man, that thing has a lot if signatures. Back when it was written, it may have worked. Troops and civilians all had the same weapons...not too many civilians now with jets, tanks, automatic weapons. Plus, somehow, even if it passes the Federal Government will call it illegal. To add to this... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/secission-petitions-filed-20-states-190210006.html My favorite part of the article is this.. Not everybody who wants to secede is polite enough to write a petition. Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County (Texas) Republican Party, wrote a post-election newsletter in which he urges the Lone Star State to leave the Union. "We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity... Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years."
  • Options
    0patience0patience Posts: 10,665 ✭✭✭✭✭
    From what I've read, there are 13 states with petitions.
    I just read on the Washington Times that it is now 23 states with petitions. With the internet signing, I'm thinking that they will probably actually see the required 25,000 signatures that the petitions need to send it in front of the president.
    What becomes of them after that, I don't know.
    But if even a small portion of them actually succeed in getting the seceding from the union, it will definitely change things.

    No president will ever allow a state to secede from the union, regardless of any laws, constitutional reasoning or what ever. The govt simply will not allow a peaceful secession from the union.

    Only Texas and Hawaii voluntarily joined the union. As such, they are the only 2 states that may have provisions for seceding from the unioin.
    And the Texas constitution states, "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
    It purposely omits any declaration that they are subject to congress or the president.

    This will all become interesting to see how it plays out.
    In Fumo Pax
    Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy cigars and that's close enough.

    Wylaff said:
    Atmospheric pressure and crap.
  • Options
    VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    I dont think it will play out at all really, its such a minority of people and more of a story that is sensational news than anything actual.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    I think this idea of secession is one example of what Governor Jindal had in mind when he called on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party” .

    Personally, I think it's great. The crazier the conservatives get, the more likely they are to continue to loose elections and become marginalized into irrelevancy.
  • Options
    jgibvjgibv Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    I dont think it will play out at all really, its such a minority of people and more of a story that is sensational news than anything actual.
    +1
    This petition's signatures only amount to 0.005% of Louisiana's population - and it appears that not all the signees are LA residents. LOL just another great example of sensational journalism since this won't happen, thankfully the "sane" people are still the majority.

    And I bet the signees of this petition would really hate this NYT Op/Ed article: Picket Fence Apocalypse

    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • Options
    catfishbluezzcatfishbluezz Posts: 7,000 ✭✭✭
    0patience:
    From what I've read, there are 13 states with petitions.
    I just read on the Washington Times that it is now 23 states with petitions. With the internet signing, I'm thinking that they will probably actually see the required 25,000 signatures that the petitions need to send it in front of the president.
    What becomes of them after that, I don't know.
    But if even a small portion of them actually succeed in getting the seceding from the union, it will definitely change things.

    No president will ever allow a state to secede from the union, regardless of any laws, constitutional reasoning or what ever. The govt simply will not allow a peaceful secession from the union.

    Only Texas and Hawaii voluntarily joined the union. As such, they are the only 2 states that may have provisions for seceding from the unioin.
    And the Texas constitution states, "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
    It purposely omits any declaration that they are subject to congress or the president.

    This will all become interesting to see how it plays out.
    Precisely why I've considered moving to Texas. Some of my friends have moved their family's there, and other then the weather at times, love it.
  • Options
    jgibvjgibv Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭✭✭
    catfishbluezz:
    0patience:
    From what I've read, there are 13 states with petitions.
    I just read on the Washington Times that it is now 23 states with petitions. With the internet signing, I'm thinking that they will probably actually see the required 25,000 signatures that the petitions need to send it in front of the president.
    What becomes of them after that, I don't know.
    But if even a small portion of them actually succeed in getting the seceding from the union, it will definitely change things.

    No president will ever allow a state to secede from the union, regardless of any laws, constitutional reasoning or what ever. The govt simply will not allow a peaceful secession from the union.

    Only Texas and Hawaii voluntarily joined the union. As such, they are the only 2 states that may have provisions for seceding from the unioin.
    And the Texas constitution states, "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
    It purposely omits any declaration that they are subject to congress or the president.

    This will all become interesting to see how it plays out.
    Precisely why I've considered moving to Texas. Some of my friends have moved their family's there, and other then the weather at times, love it.
    FWIW: Rick Perry says no to Texas secession

    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • Options
    MTuccelliMTuccelli Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭
    catfishbluezz:
    Precisely why I've considered moving to Texas. Some of my friends have moved their family's there, and other then the weather at times, love it.
    What are you waiting for, it is a great place to live and raise a family. I moved there to be closer to my grand daughter and I got a bonus of no state income tax, I keep more of my money, easier to start a business. I too have friends that have left CA and moved to Texas

  • Options
    jthanatosjthanatos Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭
    I have never understood the whole secessionist thing, whether it was liberals talking it in 2005, or conservatives now. It always seems to boil down to 'The guy we wanted didn't win, so we are taking our ball and going home'. It would be a logistical nightmare even if it was allowed to happen. What would happen to residents that didn't want to secede? Do you kick them out? Have a bunch of foreign nationals living in your country? What about your average citizen's assets? They are all valued in a foreign currency now, and might even be kept in that other country? Foreign policy? Infrastructure? Trade? Defense? The states are so heavily interconnected, the idea of breaking off is full of terrifying eventualities.

    And all this implies a friendly secession. What if it is contested? Who will recognize your new state if the US applies pressure? Venezuela? Iran? North Korea? Maybe Russia or China if they feel like pissing in the US's cheerios that day? Not exactly groups that share the secessionist states ideology.

    Meh, either way, it will never happen. Probably just serves as a good way for people to let of steam. Also, I agree with MTuccelli, Texas is awesome... even if last time I was there Brownsville was shut down for three days due to 1 inch of snow.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    I was born in Austin, have lived in Waco, Corpus Christi, New Braunsfels, Tyler, and Nacogdoches.

    Texas is just too damned hot for me. It was 104 the last time I was there. Still have lots of friends and family there, but I don't want any part of it.

  • Options
    webmostwebmost Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Gotta hand it to Barry -- He does have a way of bringing people together.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    webmost:
    Gotta hand it to Barry -- He does have a way of bringing people together.

    In the biblical sense! LMAO
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    beatnic:
    webmost:
    Gotta hand it to Barry -- He does have a way of bringing people together.

    In the biblical sense! LMAO
    For all those who want to Secede, there's always the Romney solution : just self deport.
  • Options
    Bucking_WBucking_W Posts: 208 ✭✭
    God Bless Texas! but our nut case Governor will never approve it.
  • Options
    beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Scalia's view.

    Link
  • Options
    pbchevopbchevo Posts: 712
    MTuccelli:
    catfishbluezz:
    Precisely why I've considered moving to Texas. Some of my friends have moved their family's there, and other then the weather at times, love it.
    What are you waiting for, it is a great place to live and raise a family. I moved there to be closer to my grand daughter and I got a bonus of no state income tax, I keep more of my money, easier to start a business. I too have friends that have left CA and moved to Texas



    I dont think I would ever leave TEXAS unless for work lol
  • Options
    Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat Posts: 8,572 ✭✭✭✭✭
    beatnic:
    Scalia's view.

    Link
    One of those cases where I find myself agreeing with Scalia.
    WARNING:  The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme.  Proceed at your own risk.  

    "If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed.  If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." --  Mark Twain
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    beatnic:
    Scalia's view.

    Link
    One of those cases where I find myself agreeing with Scalia.
    Funny comment from that artice..The only settled by the civil war is that the federal government will murder it’s own people to squash dissent. The only way to regain freedom from the monster of the federal government is through violence. You can thank the tyrant Abe Lincoln for that. The civil war returned all citizens of the US to the serfdom.
  • Options
    VulchorVulchor Posts: 4,848 ✭✭✭✭
    Amos Umwhat:
    beatnic:
    Scalia's view.

    Link
    One of those cases where I find myself agreeing with Scalia.
    scary, lol
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    Found this online, an interesting read. The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it. It took a bloody war to prove them wrong. Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    But I would argue that the Founding Fathers separated themselves from the government they were under, and laid out their reasons for doing so in the Declaration of Independence. And essentially they said they did it because the government was not handling it's job, and handling their issues in a way they should have been. So they said they had the right to leave, and started the Revolution. Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
  • Options
    jthanatosjthanatos Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭
    Rain:
    Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
    Key difference being representation. There are methods in place for people to control their government now. That was not the case for the colonies and England. Also, they only rebelled after exhausting what they felt was every other option over many years of abuse. Seceding after 2 elections don't go your way seems as knee-jerk to me now as when the Liberals wanted to do the same under Bush.

    Also, I had never gone into the comments on the Blaze before, until you pointed them out Rain. I always assumed it was the usual conservative vs. liberal bashing with no substance. There is a special kind of crazy down there, when commenters advocating violent revolution and assault on those that disagree are lauded, and those that argue for peaceful protest are labeled as childish.
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    Rain:
    Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
    Key difference being representation. There are methods in place for people to control their government now. That was not the case for the colonies and England. Also, they only rebelled after exhausting what they felt was every other option over many years of abuse. Seceding after 2 elections don't go your way seems as knee-jerk to me now as when the Liberals wanted to do the same under Bush.

    Also, I had never gone into the comments on the Blaze before, until you pointed them out Rain. I always assumed it was the usual conservative vs. liberal bashing with no substance. There is a special kind of crazy down there, when commenters advocating violent revolution and assault on those that disagree are lauded, and those that argue for peaceful protest are labeled as childish.
    I live in the state of Kentucky. My Senators are Rand Paul and Mitch McConnel. My Congressman is Andy Barr. If there is anyone alive in the United States today who is taxed without representation, it's me. I am not calling for secession, though, because I love the United States too much. Instead, I will just Adopt Senator Warren from Massachusets and Senator Brown from Ohio and correspond with them. That may not be how it's supposed to work, but that's what I'm gonna do.
  • Options
    jthanatosjthanatos Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    Rain:
    Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
    Key difference being representation. There are methods in place for people to control their government now. That was not the case for the colonies and England. Also, they only rebelled after exhausting what they felt was every other option over many years of abuse. Seceding after 2 elections don't go your way seems as knee-jerk to me now as when the Liberals wanted to do the same under Bush.

    Also, I had never gone into the comments on the Blaze before, until you pointed them out Rain. I always assumed it was the usual conservative vs. liberal bashing with no substance. There is a special kind of crazy down there, when commenters advocating violent revolution and assault on those that disagree are lauded, and those that argue for peaceful protest are labeled as childish.
    I live in the state of Kentucky. My Senators are Rand Paul and Mitch McConnel. My Congressman is Andy Barr. If there is anyone alive in the United States today who is taxed without representation, it's me. I am not calling for secession, though, because I love the United States too much. Instead, I will just Adopt Senator Warren from Massachusets and Senator Brown from Ohio and correspond with them. That may not be how it's supposed to work, but that's what I'm gonna do.
    I have it on good authority that Democrats are physically incapable of enjoying bourbon. You should probably re-evaluate your vote...
  • Options
    JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    jthanatos:
    JDH:
    jthanatos:
    Rain:
    Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
    Key difference being representation. There are methods in place for people to control their government now. That was not the case for the colonies and England. Also, they only rebelled after exhausting what they felt was every other option over many years of abuse. Seceding after 2 elections don't go your way seems as knee-jerk to me now as when the Liberals wanted to do the same under Bush.

    Also, I had never gone into the comments on the Blaze before, until you pointed them out Rain. I always assumed it was the usual conservative vs. liberal bashing with no substance. There is a special kind of crazy down there, when commenters advocating violent revolution and assault on those that disagree are lauded, and those that argue for peaceful protest are labeled as childish.
    I live in the state of Kentucky. My Senators are Rand Paul and Mitch McConnel. My Congressman is Andy Barr. If there is anyone alive in the United States today who is taxed without representation, it's me. I am not calling for secession, though, because I love the United States too much. Instead, I will just Adopt Senator Warren from Massachusets and Senator Brown from Ohio and correspond with them. That may not be how it's supposed to work, but that's what I'm gonna do.
    I have it on good authority that Democrats are physically incapable of enjoying bourbon. You should probably re-evaluate your vote...
    Somebody told you a dirty lie.
  • Options
    RainRain Posts: 8,958 ✭✭✭
    jthanatos:
    Rain:
    Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
    Key difference being representation. There are methods in place for people to control their government now. That was not the case for the colonies and England. Also, they only rebelled after exhausting what they felt was every other option over many years of abuse. Seceding after 2 elections don't go your way seems as knee-jerk to me now as when the Liberals wanted to do the same under Bush.

    Also, I had never gone into the comments on the Blaze before, until you pointed them out Rain. I always assumed it was the usual conservative vs. liberal bashing with no substance. There is a special kind of crazy down there, when commenters advocating violent revolution and assault on those that disagree are lauded, and those that argue for peaceful protest are labeled as childish.
    Never heard Honest Abe called a Tyrant.
  • Options
    webmostwebmost Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Rain:
    jthanatos:
    Rain:
    Got that from yahoo answers, but I agree with it. After all, "No taxation without representation" kind of started the whole thing. In essence, people not agreeing with their government.
    Key difference being representation. There are methods in place for people to control their government now. That was not the case for the colonies and England. Also, they only rebelled after exhausting what they felt was every other option over many years of abuse. Seceding after 2 elections don't go your way seems as knee-jerk to me now as when the Liberals wanted to do the same under Bush.

    Also, I had never gone into the comments on the Blaze before, until you pointed them out Rain. I always assumed it was the usual conservative vs. liberal bashing with no substance. There is a special kind of crazy down there, when commenters advocating violent revolution and assault on those that disagree are lauded, and those that argue for peaceful protest are labeled as childish.
    Never heard Honest Abe called a Tyrant.
    As John Wilkes Booth leapt down to the stage from Lincoln's box, he famously shouted: "Sic Semper Tyrannis!" And there was truth in it. Abe, for instance, was the first president to suspend habeus corpus. It was stuff like that which enraged the conspirators as much as anything else. Although as far as I know, his attorney general never ratiocinated that due process does not imply judicial process, nor did Abe empower himself by executive order to declare martial law in time of peace. The constitution allows for martial law in time of invasion or rebellion, and that was good enough for Abe.

    Back then, you could get to potus with a pistol in your pocket.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


Sign In or Register to comment.