Secession

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lotsa talk about states splitting apart to be free of liberals, fag marriage, bankrupt big cities run by minorities.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I was going to post something biting about red states being mass consumers of public assistance..

Instead I'll just *point* and *laugh*

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Look, we don't do divorce here. We do relationship counseling.

 

[Not Normal]

Let 'em freaking go. C ya Texas.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Let 'em freaking go. C ya Texas.

No, no, don't just let Texas go.

Give it back to Mexico.

 

[Not Normal]

No, no, don't just let Texas go.

Give it back to Mexico.

I'm totally fine with that.

 

[subdued_passion]

Lotsa talk about states splitting apart to be free of liberals, fag marriage, bankrupt big cities run by minorities.

Isn't it illegal to even talk about secession? It is an unlawful act in India.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Isn't it illegal to even talk about secession? It is an unlawful act in India.

During our Civil War the secession question went to the US Supreme Court via admiralty law. That is, is it lawful to seize maritime property of Americans in rebellion against the federal government? The Supremes ruled that the CSA was a co-belligerent (that is, foreign power), and its citizens were fair game for property confiscation.

That opened the legal door to France and Britain assisting the CSA, and Lincoln being forced to treat CSA prisoners as legal combatants. it was also the legal foundation for emancipation.

 

[mercury14]

Lotsa talk about states splitting apart to be free of liberals, fag marriage, bankrupt big cities run by minorities.

It's much easier to just wait it out eight more years until people like you die off.

 

[Wrong Element]

 

[kbate]

During our Civil War the secession question went to the US Supreme Court via admiralty law. That is, is it lawful to seize maritime property of Americans in rebellion against the federal government? The Supremes ruled that the CSA was a co-belligerent (that is, foreign power), and its citizens were fair game for property confiscation.

That opened the legal door to France and Britain assisting the CSA, and Lincoln being forced to treat CSA prisoners as legal combatants. it was also the legal foundation for emancipation.

That's not what the court decided in the Prize cases, but you like to keep yelling that, don't you?

The Court stated: "it is not necessary to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States." 1863

All post war decisions concerning the CSA secession, stated basically that, "your secession is only legal if you win and succeed in establishing a separate sovereign." And that's the only fact you need know today.



You have a better chance of using the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions to nullify the ACA on a state-by-state basis.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Buchanan has a column on it here:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/is-red-state-america-seceding/

I marked that for my morning reading earlier:

In the last decade of the 20th century, as the Soviet Empire disintegrated, so, too, did that prison house of nations, the USSR.

Out of the decomposing carcass came Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldova, all in Europe; Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus; and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia.

Transnistria then broke free of Moldova, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought free of Georgia.

Yugoslavia dissolved far more violently into the nations of Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo.

The Slovaks seceded from Czechoslovakia. Yet a Europe that plunged straight to war after the last breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 this time only yawned. Let them go, all agreed.

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

Scotland is moving toward a referendum on independence from England, three centuries after the Acts of Union. Catalonia pushes to be free of Madrid. Milanese and Venetians see themselves as a European people apart from Sicilians, Neapolitans and Romans.

Dutch-speaking Flanders wants to cut loose of French-speaking Wallonia in Belgium. Francophone Quebec, with immigrants from Asia and the Third World tilting the balance in favor of union, appears to have lost its historic moment to secede from Canada.

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language – but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

While many red state Americans are moving away from blue state America, seeking kindred souls among whom to live, those who love where they live but not those who rule them are seeking to secede.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/is-red-state-america-seceding/#zkgt4TQ8x4oyChFl.99

I think the vital point here is the one about economics as practiced by a centralized and remote government based upon some sort of Altruistic principle that it exists not to uphold law but to ensure the welfare of the citizen. Now rights are free, law nearly so and not much of a burden and hence a uniter while welfare is not free and thus to engage in welfare, the noble Social State must pick groups to loot in order to subsidize the groups that it deems needy, and oftentimes this neediness is not just confined to charitable giving but an abrupt redefining of Social norms in order to bring about Social Justice.

The looting and bullying creates resentment and a return to tribal thinking as people band in small groups and begin forming the us against them siege mentality which, as we see, is arising in America. This is why the Founders and writers of the Constitution sought to keep the central government small and weak other than in times of war and to keep government local and charity private. Eventually, resentment leads to violence as groups seek to protect what little Capital and dignity they have left and the central power seeks more revenue and ill-defined justices of the moment.

 

[Que]

Simpler to take the advice of an Estonian expatriot of my recent acquaintance.

He was getting his affairs in order to now becoming American expatriate, in Ecuador.

The freedom an opportunity that he came here for are no longer available, so pragmatically he will go where it is.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That's not what the court decided in the Prize cases, but you like to keep yelling that, don't you?

The Court stated: "it is not necessary to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States." 1863

All post war decisions concerning the CSA secession, stated basically that, "your secession is only legal if you win and succeed in establishing a separate sovereign." And that's the only fact you need know today.



You have a better chance of using the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions to nullify the ACA on a state-by-state basis.

Youre reading the wrong cases.

If the CSA weren't a foreign power with co-belligerent rights, Britain and France would have committed war on the US for assisting its rebels.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Simpler to take the advice of an Estonian expatriot of my recent acquaintance.

He was getting his affairs in order to now becoming American expatriate, in Ecuador.

The freedom an opportunity that he came here for are no longer available, so pragmatically he will go where it is.

Similarly, the only Hispanics we wish to listen to are the ones wanting hyper rights and the largess of government handouts while telling the Cubans who escaped Castro to sit down and shut up, or calling people like Ted Cruz "teabaggers" because he has actually read and understands our Founders. Of course the people telling them to shut up think that the Constitution is dead because nobody can understand it any more (but they take great pride in attending Shakespeare in the park, funded by public dollars, as a sign of great intellect and taste).

 

[kbate]

Youre reading the wrong cases.

If the CSA weren't a foreign power with co-belligerent rights, Britain and France would have committed war on the US for assisting its rebels.

If the CSA were a foreign power, the congress would have issued a declaration of war. They did not. They supported the president's call for the Militia to put down the insurrection. The Emancipation also freed slaves in "States in rebellion" not in a foreign power - which act would be impossible and illegal were the CSA recognized as a foreign power.

Only the CSA thought it was a sovereign power (apparently with the exception of those who brought the cases to court about seizure of ships - something a foreign belligerent cannot do, as seizure of enemy owned property is legal).

England and France never recognized the CSA as a nation either.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If the CSA were a foreign power, the congress would have issued a declaration of war. They did not. They supported the president's call for the Militia to put down the insurrection. The Emancipation also freed slaves in "States in rebellion" not in a foreign power - which act would be impossible and illegal were the CSA recognized as a foreign power.

Only the CSA thought it was a sovereign power (apparently with the exception of those who brought the cases to court about seizure of ships - something a foreign belligerent cannot do, as seizure of enemy owned property is legal).

England and France never recognized the CSA as a nation either.

In the Prize Cases the Court narrowly approved Lincoln's theory of the Civil War as a domestic insurrection with the attributes of an international war. For domestic constitutional purposes the Court affirmed the power of the president to act as if he were merely suppressing an insurrection, while for purposes of international relations, the Court held out to the world that the South was a belligerent and could be legally blockaded.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/prize-cases#ixzz2hPYD5dJh

British and Mexican ships captured by the US Navy created a problem. If the CSA was an insurrection they had rights to enter and leave Southern ports, that a blockade is an act of international law involving co-belligerants. So SCOTUS ruled that both were right, CERTS IS A CANDY MINT, AND CERTS IS A BREATH MINT.

 

[tactful]

Actually, it should be, sucksession.

 

[eyer]

se·ces·sion

noun \si-ˈse-shən\

: the act of separating from a nation or state and becoming independent

1: withdrawal into privacy or solitude : retirement

2: formal withdrawal from an organization

It's hugely delightful...

...being a secessionist from the United Socialist State of America since April 30, 2008.

 

[phrodeau]

No, no, don't just let Texas go.

Give it back to Mexico.

The Rio Grande is drying up, so the border will disappear eventually.

 

[JohnnySavage]

During our Civil War the secession question went to the US Supreme Court via admiralty law. That is, is it lawful to seize maritime property of Americans in rebellion against the federal government? The Supremes ruled that the CSA was a co-belligerent (that is, foreign power), and its citizens were fair game for property confiscation.

That opened the legal door to France and Britain assisting the CSA, and Lincoln being forced to treat CSA prisoners as legal combatants. it was also the legal foundation for emancipation.

Cite?

I think you're just making stuff up (again). The only Supreme Court case I can recall dealing with secession was Texas v. White, which was decided after the civil war and dealt with Texas selling bonds to the CSA.

Being the Engineer/Psychologist/Farmer/1758th in line to the British Crown/Founder of Atlanta and general Constitutional expert that you are though, I'm willing to defer to your vast knowledge, education and experience.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Cite?

I think you're just making stuff up (again). The only Supreme Court case I can recall dealing with secession was Texas v. White, which was decided after the civil war and dealt with Texas selling bonds to the CSA.

Being the Engineer/Psychologist/Farmer/1758th in line to the British Crown/Founder of Atlanta and general Constitutional expert that you are though, I'm willing to defer to your vast knowledge, education and experience.

*snicker*

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Cite?

I think you're just making stuff up (again). The only Supreme Court case I can recall dealing with secession was Texas v. White, which was decided after the civil war and dealt with Texas selling bonds to the CSA.

Being the Engineer/Psychologist/Farmer/1758th in line to the British Crown/Founder of Atlanta and general Constitutional expert that you are though, I'm willing to defer to your vast knowledge, education and experience.

Do your own research. The way you clowns like to play the cite game is to discount any citations offered you. So fuck you. And I cant help it your life has been a waste, and you have no clue who fucked your mom. She prolly sat in something.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Do your own research. The way you clowns like to play the cite game is to discount any citations offered you. So fuck you. And I cant help it your life has been a waste, and you have no clue who fucked your mom. She prolly sat in something.

In other words, you're completely full of shit, as usual.