Hawaii a sovereign nation?

[Toad]

What if eleven States choose to secede?

Where in the Constitution does it say that a State cannot withdraw from the Union?

[Vulcan]

Guys, before you do any of this take a look at New Zealand. We've gone done this whole white guilt path. Now while the NZ Maori's do deserve reparations to a certain extend the whole things turned into a major cash industry with people milking it for every thing they can.

Now its gone full circle, the general NZ population have become fairly resentful of what is seen as a minority taking advantage of an offer to make amends, of a minority wasting the money and being guilt of wholesale corruption, and of a minority getting carried away and pushing for more. Now the backlash has started, and its not pretty.

You thought lawyers were bad, you ain't seen nothing!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Guys, before you do any of this take a look at New Zealand. We've gone done this whole white guilt path. Now while the NZ Maori's do deserve reparations to a certain extend the whole things turned into a major cash industry with people milking it for every thing they can.

Now its gone full circle, the general NZ population have become fairly resentful of what is seen as a minority taking advantage of an offer to make amends, of a minority wasting the money and being guilt of wholesale corruption, and of a minority getting carried away and pushing for more. Now the backlash has started, and its not pretty.

You thought lawyers were bad, you ain't seen nothing!

Good example!

Many in the US have been saying this for years.  Afirmative action and other social programs geared at helping ONLY minorities only GIVES them a leg up but doesnt actually TEACH them how to get ahead.

There was a news report on the radio recently that Blacks in the LA area are actually worse off now then they were 10 or 15 years ago.  This is AFTER all sorts of social engineering programs wellfare and the "villiage" raising the kid so to speak.  

now truth be told we are finding out statistically that this doesn't work.  No one was taught how to fish.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Toad
What if eleven States choose to secede?

Where in the Constitution does it say that a State cannot withdraw from the Union?

What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it, and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. . . .

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which of necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained it, by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts or effecting any other selfish or unjust object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which no government can possibly endure.

If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the Preamble, calling itself "We, the people."

It may well be questioned whether there is today a majority of the legally qualified voters of any state, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded states. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election all that large class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. . . .

This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we contend. . . .


Abraham Lincoln, Address to Congress, July 4 1861

Now, since the the Federal Government has already 'spoken' once on the subject, vis a vis a war of succession wherein the states that attempted said succession were most forcefully not permitted to do so..  would that suffice as 'precedent'?

[Xargos]

The South is occupied territory.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Xargos
The South is occupied territory.

It certainly is. Every human being in the South should leave and unoccupy it.

[Toad]

Hang, I'm not sure using the guy that suspended Habeus Corpus is your best choice.  

I'm sure you know the 10th:

"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."

Where does the Constitution delegate the power to force (militarily) States to remain in the Union to the United States?

I don't need a speech, I need a Constitutional reference.

[lasersailor184]

Toad, had you read what he quoted, it would tell you exactly what you want to hear.

It may well be questioned whether there is today a majority of the legally qualified voters of any state, except, perhaps, South Carolina, in favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded states. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election all that large class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against the Union. . . .

Basically, Lincoln is saying that South Carolina is the only state that voted itself out of the union.  All the other people from the other states were forced out by politicians.  Whether the people wanted this or not is a seperate matter.


If that's not enough, I'll quote a higher power.  The Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Like he told you, SC is the only state that "Legally" seceded.  All the other states "Illegally" seceded against the wishes of the constituents.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Like he told you, SC is the only state that "Legally" seceded.  All the other states "Illegally" seceded against the wishes of the constituents.

An entirely different subject.

What I asked is where in the Constitution is the Federal Government delegated the power to use military force on a State to make it remain in the Union.

That hasn't been answered as yet.

[lasersailor184]

I just told you, but the answer isn't in the constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence.

The US obviously has the military right to defend its citizens from harm or danger.

What Lincoln is telling you (and what we'll unfortunately have to repeat 3 times total) is that the people of all the southern states except SC never voted to secede (although some people did vote to anti-secede).

So what he's telling you is there are a bunch of US citizens being held against their will in a foreign country.

[Toad]

What you quoted from the Declaration.. which is not the "law of the land", the Constitution is.... SUPPORTS the right of States to secede. It does NOT support the use of Federal troops to keep a State in the Union.

So again, my question has not been answered.

If you like, since you like South Carolina as the "legitimate" example, just show me where in the Constitution the Federal Government was delegated the power to militarily force SC to remain in the Union.

BTW, SC did NOT have a "popular vote" to secede as you seem to imply. They held a convention and the people sent delegates. This is pretty much the same format that was used by all the Confederate States. An "Ordinance of Secession" was passed at a convention. I'm not aware of ANY of the Confederate States that subjected the Ordinances to a popular vote. Correct me if I am wrong.

Then the heroic day of December 20, 1860, came. The Convention adopted the Ordinance of Secession on roll call vote 169-0. At 7:00pm, the delegates signed the Ordinance of Secession declaring their political withdrawal from the United States. The State of South Carolina became the Commonwealth of South Carolina--the Palmetto Republic. During the next days, the Convention passed laws and resolutions a new nation would pass--South Carolina was a new nation.

[edit] Oh, and the idea that the loyal Union populations of the CS were being "held against their will" is totally destroyed by the fact of the armies of the CS. Unless you want to maintain that the CS armies were all drafted against their will and we're unenthusiastic fighters as a result.

[lasersailor184]

The Declaration is more important than the constitution.  It is the supreme law of the land.  The Constitution only exists because the Declaration does.

[Hangtime]

Toad, there is no constitutional refrence to succession as far as I'm aware.

There is a historical refrence to some states that made the attempt tho.. didn't seem to have worked out all that well, the ensuing war was a bitter one that pitted american against american, about 3/4 of a million patriots on both sides of the great question died, another million or so were maimed, quite a few beautiful cities were destroyed.

I would have thought that the Civil War settled the issue of succession.

Now, should you gentlemen living in the south and west be considering (seriously) another attempt at succession, please lemme know, so I can get the hell outta here and ensconce myself on a little island in the bahamas... I really don't wanna participate in a conflict that pits americans against americans.

[vorticon]

"
I would have thought that the Civil War settled the issue of succession."

you'd think that, but lasersailor (whom im basicly agreeing with, odd) points out that other than 1 state there was (in lincolns eyes) no other state that legally seceeded.

then theres the entire human rights issue, which seems to be a perfectly good reason to invade a completly foreign nation on the other side of the world, let alone a brand new nation on your doorstep.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The Declaration is more important than the constitution.  It is the supreme law of the land.  The Constitution only exists because the Declaration does.

LOL!

Yeah, that's right. The Supreme Court interprets the Declaration.

How silly of me. I apologize.