http://www.justia.us/us/74/700/case.html

this is the only thing that i could find about session and its legality

there wasnt anything matching session in the u.s. code

11/3/2005 8:58:45 PM

Quote :

"omfg wouldn't it be ironic if, 2000 years after the barbarians of europe rebelled and destroyed the roman empire, they re-formed into the european union???? OMF THE IRONY stfu. times change. 140 years is a long time "

WHY IN THE HELL DOES ANYTHING POSTED FLY HIGHER ABOVE YOUR HEAD THEN THE DECAYING HUBBLE TELESCOPE?

BY THE WAY, I KNOW YOUR HISTORICALL KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED TO THE LAST TIME YOU TOOK A SHIT

BUT YOUR REPLY MAKES LESS SENSE THEN A DICK ON A CHICK.

11/3/2005 9:51:47 PM

NO BLOOD FOR MAPLE SYRUP

11/3/2005 10:03:30 PM

Quote :

"WHERE IS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT A STATE CANNOT SECEDE? I KNOW MORE ABOUT AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY THAN YOU THINK, AND PROBABLY MORE THAN YOU, TO BOOT. WE ALSO HAD SANCTIONED WARS AGAINST INDIAN TRIBES, DOES THAT MAKE THEM LEGAL??? your argument is fucking terrible."

WHAT YOU FAIL TO REALIZE, YOU IMBECILE, IS THAT IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT'S IN THE GODDAMNED CONSTITUION IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOES TO WAR WITH YOU ASS, AND WINS. AND THEY HAVE PROVEN THEY WILL WIN.

LEGAL? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? IT WON'T MATTER A WHOLE LOT WHAT'S LEGAL OR NOT WHEN YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE GUNSHOT WOUNDS.

11/3/2005 10:12:57 PM

Quote :

"Wasn't it Vermont that was crazy about joining the fucking union after the revolution? Green Mountain Boys and all that garbage? They don't know what they want."

Yeah, one day they want one thing,... few HUNDRED years later they want something else. OMF flip-flop. Go march on the brickyard or something. Really.

11/3/2005 10:53:59 PM

Secession is illegal. The civil war proves this.

As a citizen of the United States, you are bound by the laws of the United States. If you give up citizenship, you also give up rights afforded to you by the Consitution of the United States. The definition of citizenship is, I think, the 14th amendment.

There is no process for an entire state to withdraw from the Union.

11/3/2005 11:00:26 PM

Quote :

"WHAT YOU FAIL TO REALIZE, YOU IMBECILE, IS THAT IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT'S IN THE GODDAMNED CONSTITUION IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOES TO WAR WITH YOU ASS, AND WINS. AND THEY HAVE PROVEN THEY WILL WIN. LEGAL? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? IT WON'T MATTER A WHOLE LOT WHAT'S LEGAL OR NOT WHEN YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE GUNSHOT WOUNDS."

NO FUCKING SHIT THEY WILL GET ATTACKED. I AM NOT DEBATING THAT. FUCKING READ WHAT I WRITE YOU STUPID SHITHEAD. FOR FUCK SAKE'S WOMAN. YOU ARE SO FUCKING CLUELESS.

Quote :

"What was actually wrong with what I said? If everyone is their own sovereign government, how is that different from anarchy?"

maybe that you jump to the conlcusion that if vermont secedes, everything will collapse into anarchy. vermont seceding HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANARCHY.

Quote :

"You haven't answered the question of why I am bound to adhere to the decision of "colonies" of which I was never a part, and which no longer exist."

if you're going to be this stupid i don't know why i bother talking to you. it seems time and time again, although i give you the benefit of the doubt, that you don't know shit about what you're arguing and refuse to think about it from anyone else's point of view.

considering you are born into a pre-established government, you are under their law. Who enforces it? obviously the same guns that will attack vermont if it secedes. i'm not arguing against that at all, much to Anne's chagrin. the government is going to enforce it, if it is against the law. but you are not a land owner, you have no legal property that can secede from the government, so your attempt to trap me isn't even close.

you're seriously going to have to try harder. these analogies are terrible.

Quote :

"And no where in that document or any of its subordinate documents have I given up my right to secede, either."

so how long have you been a sovereign government with complete control of your own private land?

Quote :

"So, if the Supreme Court explicitly decided that states couldn't secede, would you shut your trap? Oh, wait, that's right...you only do that when you agree with the court's decision, just like your precious ACLU does."

haha, you're so fucking laughable. you can't even make up a decent argument. SOUNDS LIKE YOUR COLUMN. (see, i can do it too!)

Quote :

"Any act of secession will entail the seizure of Federal buildings. The Federal government will not give up those buildings, meaning that the seceding state will, invariably, have to make war on it."

wrong, vermont could stipulate explicitly that all federal property remains that of the US. what then?

are you trying to drop civil war history on me as if you know anything about it? what's great is you think i'm defending the confederacy or something. Anne is the one who brought it up, you should try to impress her with that knowledge.

Quote :

"There should have been a lot of things in the Constitution that didn't seem necessary at the time. We've tacked on ammendments for that reason, and dickered at great length over some issues for others."

and that's why they should've put it on after the civil war. to prevent vermont from even being able to do this.

11/4/2005 12:53:33 AM

secessionists will be crushed

11/4/2005 1:14:37 AM

like i said, you idiots, hawaii will secede LONG before vermont

11/4/2005 7:50:49 AM

Quote :

"FUCKING READ WHAT I WRITE YOU STUPID SHITHEAD. FOR FUCK SAKE'S WOMAN. YOU ARE SO FUCKING CLUELESS."

I DID READ WHAT YOU SAID YOU FUCKING IDIOT, AND YOU THINKING I'M A WOMAN MAKES YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT BEING CLUELESS SO IRONIC IT'S NOT EVEN FUNNY.

SO WHERE DOES THE LEGALITY YOU ARE SO FERVENT ABOUT EVEN PLAY INTO IT? IF A WAR IS GOING TO BREAK OUT TO KEEP A FUCKING STATE IN, THEN THE LEGALITY OF IT ALL IS A MOOT FUCKING POINT.

NOW GO BACK TO READING MAD MAGAZINE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 8:08 AM. Reason : *]

11/4/2005 8:07:59 AM

Vermont=Chechnya

Speaking of secession, what ever happened to those people who wanted to move to SC to secede and form a Christian nation?

11/4/2005 8:20:52 AM

hah hah, i love that you are getting so pissed.

the legality will come into play if the UN were to get involved. and it does get involved in civil wars.

IDIOT.

11/4/2005 8:23:22 AM

THE UN? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

WHAT THE FUCK WOULD THE UN DO? WE ARE THE UN'S MILITARY.

THEY WOULDN'T DO SHIT.

11/4/2005 8:46:38 AM

Quote :

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

THE FOUNDERS DECLARED INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BRITISH. OMG! THEY SECEDED FROM THE BRITISH!

11/4/2005 8:56:08 AM

actually, you're right the UN couldn't do anything because we would veto everything.

WHETHER OR NOT THE GOV'T WOULD ALLOW IT IS NOT WHAT I AM DEBATING.

WHEN WILL YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???

i'm still not seeing the laws against secession. please SHOW THEM TO ME, TOOTS.

11/4/2005 8:59:54 AM

AND I AM SAYING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS MOOT. IT'S THEORETICAL. IT LIVES IN FANTASY LAND.

11/4/2005 9:17:36 AM

Quote :

"maybe that you jump to the conlcusion that if vermont secedes, everything will collapse into anarchy."

Never said anything of the kind. I said that recognizing the right to secede opens the door to anarchy. This is the third time I've explained that to you, incidentally.

Quote :

"you're seriously going to have to try harder. these analogies are terrible."

Jesus Christ, you don't even know what an analogy is.

You have yet to give me a good why one political entity (a state) can secede from a larger one while others (counties, cities, etc) can't.

Quote :

"so how long have you been a sovereign government with complete control of your own private land?"

Since when is a state sovereign?

But hey, where does sovereignty and control come from? Hmm....

Quote :

"haha, you're so fucking laughable. you can't even make up a decent argument."

Oh, the irony.

Why don't you respond to what I actually said? You claimed that the Supreme Court's decision regarding my land ownership is final on the matter, even though no where in the Constitution is my land explicitly taken away. So I ask again: If the Supreme Court had decided that secession was unconstitutional, would you shut up?

Quote :

"wrong, vermont could stipulate explicitly that all federal property remains that of the US."

Turning hundreds of Federal properties into political islands isn't the sort of thing you can do unilaterally -- it's still effectively taking them away from the government. Besides, what kind of idiot seceding government is going to allow, say, a US military base or two to just sit within its borders?

Quote :

"what's great is you think i'm defending the confederacy or something."

No, I don't. I think you're defending secession. As it happens, we only have one real example of someone trying that, and that's the Civil War. Of course I'm going to look to historical examples.

Quote :

"and that's why they should've put it on after the civil war."

As it happens, the overwhelming majority of the country tends to think that the Civil War itself made the point quite clear.

11/4/2005 3:04:49 PM

Quote :

"Jesus Christ, you don't even know what an analogy is."

you're right, i mean your comparisons are terrible. OMG A HOUSE IS A STATE NOW.

Quote :

"You have yet to give me a good [reason] why one political entity (a state) can secede from a larger one while others (counties, cities, etc) can't."

a city like raleigh had never been independent of a larger government. a city like new haven, that had once been it's own colony gave up it sovereignty when it joined the colony of connecticut. this sovereignty was gained by settling the area first (if you want recent precedence of gaining sovereignty by calling dibs, look at antarctica). this colony never gave up sovereignty to secede unless it was directly established law in the constitution. look at a little thing i like to call the US Constitution.

Quote :

"Article [X.] 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. "

as soon as it's established in the constitution that they don't have the power to secede i have no argument.

Quote :

"So I ask again: If the Supreme Court had decided that secession was unconstitutional, would you shut up?"

yes, but i'd prefer Congress to. either way vermont will have already agreed to it. but until then, eat a dick, because i see no reason to shut up.

i'd also like to see your rebuttal to my argument that secession is not prohibited legally and that vermont never conceded it's sovereignty to secede.

Quote :

"Turning hundreds of Federal properties into political islands isn't the sort of thing you can do unilaterally -- it's still effectively taking them away from the government. Besides, what kind of idiot seceding government is going to allow, say, a US military base or two to just sit within its borders?"

the same idiot gov't that isn't going to give them a legal reason to by confiscating the fed. property. the only base i can find in VT is an air base in Burlington. it's not like the US can't pull a Berlin Airlift. once again, look at embassies to see how individual buildings can be sustained on foreign soil.

you are citing the confederacy, who fired first on fort sumter, as precedent. the only problem is that the seceded states were levying war, even if they were no longer a part of the US (for your treason argument). they were belligerents. if vermont were to secede, keep fed. property american, and don't attack the air base in burlington, i'm really not seeing how the US has a pot to piss in.

but would the US gov't mobilize the army and stop vermont from seceding? naturally, but until congress or the SC puts it in writing, vermont will still pass legislation like this. and i'll still defend their position until you prove otherwise that the state has given up explicitly the right to secede.

11/4/2005 4:35:52 PM

Quote :

"as soon as it's established in the constitution that they don't have the power to secede i have no argument"

you have no argument anyway because

Quote :

"YOUR ARGUMENT IS MOOT. IT'S THEORETICAL. IT LIVES IN FANTASY LAND."

11/4/2005 4:49:17 PM

you're so right, because evolution, ID, global warming, relativity, ad infinitum are all moot.

if i argue relativism, am i invalidated because it is theoretical?

theoretical arguments are still valid.

how about political theory by john locke, or hobbes, or economic theory by smith?

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 5:03 PM. Reason : go back under your bridge.]

11/4/2005 5:00:49 PM

i like how nobody wants to talk about hawaii

maybe its the giant pink elephant in the thread

11/4/2005 9:25:23 PM

LOOK DOUCHE

NOBODY EVER FOUGHT A BLOODY WAR OVER INTELLIGENT DESIGN OR EVOLUTION

FURTHERMORE

THE FACT THAT THE WAR WAS WON BY THE SIDE IT WAS MAKES IT A DEFACTO THAT NO STATE CAN SECEDE.

YOU CAN TRY, BUT YOU BETTER FUCKING HOPE YOU WIN.

AND THERE'S NOT 10 STATES, NAY 20 PUT TOGETHER THAT COULD FUCK WITH THE US MILITARY ESPECIALLY WITH NATIONAL GUARDSMEN. BEYOND THAT THERE IS NOT THE STRONG FEELING OF STATE PATRIOTISM THAT EXISTED DURING THAT WAR.

SO THIS THEORETICAL IS ALL JUST INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION WITH NO REAL POINT, UNLIKE ID AND EVOLUTION AND ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS YOU MENTIONED.

IF YOU WANT TO GO FELLATE YOURSELF SOMEPLACE ELSE, THAT WOULD BE NICE. THE REST OF US ALREADY AGREE ON THE IDEA OF SECESSION.

11/4/2005 9:29:17 PM

Quote :

"as soon as it's established in the constitution that they don't have the power to secede i have no argument."

OK:

Quote :

"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Pretty simple, huh? The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land -- no matter what the states say.

The Constitution cannot logically be the Supreme Law of the Land if a state can just get up one day and say "hey! I don't like the law anymore! I am going to stop following it!" For one, there's the whole part about "any Thing ... to the Contrary notwithstanding." For another, that would be an incredibly stupid way to frame a system of government.

The "right to secession" is the dumbest, most asinine thing ever. If states have a right to secede, then I have the right to murder someone and then "secede" from the laws of the state.

11/4/2005 9:30:28 PM

11/4/2005 9:31:13 PM

consider that from January to April 1861, the US had not declared war or mobilized its troops. and only was there actual fighting after the confederate attack on fort sumter.

the south started it, and the north finished it. THAT MEANS THE WAR WAS FOUGHT BECAUSE THE SOUTH ATTACKED THE NORTH. would there have been a war if the south had not been the aggressor, it doesn't appear so by Lincoln's actions. YOUR LOVELY PRECEDENT IS MOOT.

Quote :

"YOU CAN TRY, BUT YOU BETTER FUCKING HOPE YOU WIN."

thanks for agreeing with me after all this.

Quote :

"The Constitution cannot logically be the Supreme Law of the Land if a state can just get up one day and say "hey! I don't like the law anymore! I am going to stop following it!" For one, there's the whole part about "any Thing ... to the Contrary notwithstanding." For another, that would be an incredibly stupid way to frame a system of government."

if the constitution never says it can't just get up and leave, then why the fuck can it not?

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 9:37 PM. Reason : d]

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 9:41 PM. Reason : er ist so dumm]

11/4/2005 9:32:28 PM

HAWAII

thx YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES

11/4/2005 9:33:35 PM

Quote :

"the south started it, and the north finished it. THAT MEANS THE WAR WAS FOUGHT BECAUSE THE SOUTH ATTACKED THE NORTH. would there have been a war if the south had not been the aggressor, it doesn't appear so by Lincoln's actions. YOUR LOVELY PRECEDENT IS MOOT. "

Love your logic, there, moron. Cause that's how all wars work. You probably don't know any more about war than you do about fucking.

11/4/2005 10:18:17 PM

Quote :

"The "right to secession" is the dumbest, most asinine thing ever. If states have a right to secede, then I have the right to murder someone and then "secede" from the laws of the state. "

Uhm... wha??!!

P.S. I know the streets of Canada and Switzerland are crawling with murderers.

11/4/2005 10:18:47 PM

well let me think, the attack on ft. sumter was the legal justification for going to war. once again you people are not seeing that i am arguing solely on a legal basis.

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 10:45 PM. Reason : i bet i know more about wars than you, bitch.]

11/4/2005 10:44:56 PM

Quote :

"the attack on ft. sumter was the legal justification for going to war. once again you people are not seeing that i am arguing solely on a legal basis."

I don't see any law behind that. It was an act of war, which seceding states tend to do upon secession, in order to claim territory as theirs. Prove it, though, and I will stand corrected.

and,

Quote :

"i bet i know more about wars than you, bitch"

I highly doubt that.

11/4/2005 10:53:11 PM

Quote :

"i like how nobody wants to talk about hawaii"

OK I will.

The Hawaii thing is a little different I think. Basically there is a group of people there who want the US to recognize them as a native tribe. Some say their motives revolve around the casino privilages angle.

This attempt is motivated more by monetary gain rather than by loyalty to the old Hawaiiian monarchy.

11/4/2005 10:56:17 PM

nothing could be farther from the truth. the hawaiian independence movement is for real and they aint lookin for fuckin casinos, let me tell you that



AND THEY'RE A BIT PAST THE STAGE OF THE ONLINE PETITION OK

11/4/2005 11:13:32 PM

Quote :

"the hawaiian independence movement is for real"

Quote :

"Legal experts base their analyses of such questions on two watershed events in Hawaiian history. First, in 1893, the Hawaiian monarchy was overthrown by a group of American residents of the islands who favored annexation by the United States. The overthrow was undertaken with the backing of the U.S. minister to Hawaii, who ordered Marines into Honolulu on the eve of the coup. This group of Americans got its wish in 1898 when Congress annexed Hawaii to the United States. In 1900, the islands became a U.S. territory. Leading up to the second key event--statehood--in the late 1940s the United States classified several possessions, including Hawaii, as "non-self-governing territories" under Article 73, of the U.N. Charter. In 1953, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 742, stating that independence is the primary form of self-rule for such territories unless another status is selected by the population under conditions of "absolute equality". Significantly, however, before Hawaiian residents voted for statehood in 1959, the United States had withdrawn Hawaii from the U.N list of non-self-governing territories. Accordingly, the vote asked Hawaiian residents just one question: "Shall Hawaii immediately be addmitted into the Union as a State?" --James Podger, lawyer, and a senior editor of the ABA Journal."

Granted, our taking over of Hawaii was a bit fishy. But the folks there eventually voted to become a state. Once you're in, you're in for good. Balkanizing the US wouldn't improve anything.

11/5/2005 12:18:55 AM

Quote :

"if the constitution never says it can't just get up and leave, then why the fuck can it not?"

Because it's implied by what the text says. It's written there in plain English. It's plain logic:

* the constitution is the supreme law of the land
* the above is true, no matter what the states say in their constitutions or their laws

Therefore: logically, a state can never secede. It's just plain logic. Read the above two sentences and figure it out.

Let's say a state passes a law declaring that it is seceding. Then the constitution is still the supreme law of the land that binds the state, because of the "notwithstanding" clause -- a state simply cannot subvert the "supreme law of the land" principle by passing a law or amending its Constitution.

One more time, just in case you don't get it:

Quote :

"This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

"Supreme law of the land" and "bound thereby" mean that every state is subservient to the Constitution, except insofaras they have delegated powers.

"Notwithstanding" means "nothing a state does can make the Constitution NOT the supreme law of the land."

Let's say you take the "delegated powers" argument from the 10th amendment. Then a state says "hey, I have the right to secede" -- how does the state declare that intention?

Well, quite obviously it passes a law or amends its constitution.

But -- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." So the state has no way to secede.

I really can't stress this point enough -- there is simply NO WAY for you to logically get around this clause. The Constitution simply is NOT an option for the states; it is called the "Constitution" for a reason.

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 12:31 AM. Reason : foo]

11/5/2005 12:30:00 AM

ah okay.

you're right.

i was wrong.

thanks, that's what i was looking for.

Quote :

"I don't see any law behind that. It was an act of war, which seceding states tend to do upon secession, in order to claim territory as theirs. Prove it, though, and I will stand corrected."

Lincoln's attitude towards the seceded states was not belligerent. he felt it could have ended peacefully. the last thing he wanted was a civil war. that is why he forfeited all the federal property but sumter, and one other place. sumter was important for tax reasons. he let the south make the first move, so that the north would avoid being the aggressor. if the south wasn't hotheaded and suspicious of lincoln, who knows whether or not we would have had a war.

[Edited on November 5, 2005 at 12:55 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2005 12:45:27 AM

Quote :

"a city like new haven, that had once been it's own colony gave up it sovereignty when it joined the colony of connecticut."

How so? Did every former colonial city explicitly forfeit its right to secede?

Quote :

"(if you want recent precedence of gaining sovereignty by calling dibs, look at antarctica"

Amazing how International Politics major GrumpyGOP has had courses in International Law, isn't it?

As to Article X -- if it isn't obvious by now that we've been essentially ignoring that one for about two hundred years, I don't know if I can help you.

Quote :

"i'd also like to see your rebuttal to my argument that secession is not prohibited legally and that vermont never conceded it's sovereignty to secede."

Maybe -- maybe, pending a look into whether or not Congress already made secession illegal through less-than-explicit decisions and precedence -- it isn't prohibited in a strict legal sense. But it is prohibited by basically everything else: logic, force of arms, historical precedent.

As to sovereignty, that is something that belongs to nation states. Vermont does not have a monopoly on coersion within its borders. It does not interact internationally. It is not sovereign, period.

Quote :

" it's not like the US can't pull a Berlin Airlift."

The only reason we did the Berlin Airlift was to avoid a catastrophic war with a superpower. We will not have that motivation versus Vermont.

Quote :

"the only base i can find in VT is an air base in Burlington."

This is far too irrelevant for you to have mentioned. Fine, what if NC tried to secede with all of its (quite large) bases?

Quote :

"once again, look at embassies to see how individual buildings can be sustained on foreign soil."

There is a reason to have embassies in other countries. There is not a particular reason to have post offices in them, or FBI buildings, or any of the other (rather numerous) Federal installations.

Face it. Any state that secedes will be seizing de facto every Federal property within its borders, and that would constitute aggression.

Quote :

"but until congress or the SC puts it in writing, vermont will still pass legislation like this."

They can talk about it until they're blue in the face. They can demand it, they can pass resolutions demanding it, hell -- they can even officially "declare" themselves indpendent. But as soon as they start doing anything about it, they're toast.

Quote :

"YOUR LOVELY PRECEDENT IS MOOT."

Uh...no. My precedent works because it shows exactly what I am describing as having happened in the past. It happened because it was inevitable. Seceding necessitates war.

Quote :

"once again you people are not seeing that i am arguing solely on a legal basis."

Of course we see it. It's the whole reason why you're wrong.

I've hinted several times that, at the end of the day, Mao was right. Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Constitution is only the source of authority as long as the guy with the gun says so. I know it's a bleak outlook, but reality isn't always shining and happy.

Theory is only good for trying to aim the gun.

11/5/2005 12:56:04 AM

Quote :

"How so? Did every former colonial city explicitly forfeit its right to secede?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven_Colony
i'm just citing historical precedence.

Quote :

"As to Article X -- if it isn't obvious by now that we've been essentially ignoring that one for about two hundred years, I don't know if I can help you."

i understand that states' rights do not exist as they should. that's why anne was right about being solely theoretical.

Quote :

"As to sovereignty, that is something that belongs to nation states. Vermont does not have a monopoly on coersion within its borders. It does not interact internationally. It is not sovereign, period."

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/inttransfer/bilateral_e.shtml
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/oeo/lists.htm

Quote :

"The only reason we did the Berlin Airlift was to avoid a catastrophic war with a superpower. We will not have that motivation versus Vermont."

ethan allen will rise from the grave and make you eat those words!

Quote :

"Maybe -- maybe, pending a look into whether or not Congress already made secession illegal through less-than-explicit decisions and precedence -- it isn't prohibited in a strict legal sense."

nope, apparently not.

Quote :

"This is far too irrelevant for you to have mentioned. Fine, what if NC tried to secede with all of its (quite large) bases?"

germany?

Quote :

"Face it. Any state that secedes will be seizing de facto every Federal property within its borders, and that would constitute aggression."

yeah, and i was saying de facto isn't de jure.

Quote :

"They can talk about it until they're blue in the face. They can demand it, they can pass resolutions demanding it, hell -- they can even officially "declare" themselves indpendent. But as soon as they start doing anything about it, they're toast."

why is this still coming up?

Quote :

"Uh...no. My precedent works because it shows exactly what I am describing as having happened in the past. It happened because it was inevitable. Seceding necessitates war."

once again, it does not work because vermont has to be belligerent for it to hold water. And if secession were actually legal, no gov't today would allow it. but i am arguing that if it is legally allowed, then said gov'ts have no authority to prevent them.

once again i was never arguing that the US would flex its muscle. i was arguing that they should be allowed to. and if the US would remain calm, then nothing like the civil war would occur.

1861: the southern states were the aggressors.
now: the US would be the aggressor.

different circumstances.

Quote :

"I've hinted several times that, at the end of the day, Mao was right. Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Constitution is only the source of authority as long as the guy with the gun says so. I know it's a bleak outlook, but reality isn't always shining and happy."

at least you end your argument with clichés.

it's just a simple case of me forgetting that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

11/5/2005 1:28:26 AM

Quote :

"i'm just citing historical precedence. "

As far as I can see from that article, New Haven never voluntarily gave up its status.

Regarding the sovereignty...no. Not the same thing. I should have been more explicit, I know, and I apologize, but you seemed to know enough about international relations that I didn't think it would be necessary. Does North Carolina have an embassy in any foreign country? Would it be admitted into the UN? Of course not, because states can only make treaties with the go-ahead of the US gov't -- which is, I'm almost certain, explicitly in the Constitution. Even if you had won that point, the other (that states do not have a monopoly of coercion) would hold, and it is also a requisite for sovereignty.

Quote :

"germany?"

The Germans aren't exactly thrilled with our presence nowadays. Besides, those bases were as much for the protection of German (and Europe in general) as for anything else. Couldn't really make that claim with a state. Plus, secession rather implies a strong degree of hostility between the new nation and the old. Think about it.

Quote :

"yeah, and i was saying de facto isn't de jure."

I'm quite certain it would be. It seems rather silly to believe that a state would allow little islands of foreign control all over its territory that served no foreign relations purpose. Such a thing would simply not happen.

Quote :

"but i am arguing that if it is legally allowed, then said gov'ts have no authority to prevent them."

I think Smoker4 has already handled that, and it appears that you conceded to him.

Quote :

"now: the US would be the aggressor."

One of the big points I've been making this whole time is that secession is an act of agression.

Quote :

"it's just a simple case of me forgetting that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT."

I don't know if it makes right, but it does make what's actually going to fucking happen. And I know that sitting around and talking about what would happen in Magical Happy Fairy Land if the Enchanted Wood decided to secede is a waste of time.

If Vermont secedes, it won't just let the US hold onto all of its lands. It won't be indifferent to a US military presence inside of its borders. It won't do any of the number of ludicrous things you have suggested it do in order to avoid being an agressor.

11/5/2005 2:06:12 AM

11/5/2005 8:46:58 AM

There was a great deal of corruption involved in hawaii's "vote" to join the United States and there is a credible and real movement in hawaiian politics to secede from the union. They even have legislation in the capital NOW that has a good chance of passing that would form the first step towards declaring independence from the US.

now you guys can go on wanking yourselves to a bullshit website that asks people to sign an online petition, but the REAL SHIT is going down in hawaii


fucking morons

11/5/2005 9:00:54 AM

It'll be a cold day in Honolulu before we allow Don Ho and the gang to secede.

11/5/2005 10:37:26 AM

Good for them, then the South can go on its own finally after a 140-year halftime.

Quote :

"Secession is illegal. The civil war proves this. As a citizen of the United States, you are bound by the laws of the United States. If you give up citizenship, you also give up rights afforded to you by the Consitution of the United States. The definition of citizenship is, I think, the 14th amendment. There is no process for an entire state to withdraw from the Union."

For 49 of the 50 states, this is technically true (although if someone leaves, you think there's going to be a war? against who? the retired old people and bomb their houses?).

For Texas, this is not. Considering the circumstances of their entering the Union, it is written in their State Constitution that they could legally secede if they request. That is why they have the nickname "The Lone Star State".

[Edited on November 6, 2005 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2005 9:29:14 PM

where is that "the united states of canada" and "jesusland" pick?

11/7/2005 1:51:28 AM

Why do some people believe that if they type in all caps then it makes their point more valid?

To address the point of the thread, I do feel that a state should have the right to secede from the union. The Constitution is a contract and like all contracts it can be ended/terminated.

11/9/2005 9:21:53 PM

BECAUSE WE LIKE TO SCREAM AT STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS LIKE YOU

11/9/2005 10:48:38 PM

It makes them feel big

11/9/2005 10:49:37 PM

Can Texas go ahead and do this and stop being the shitstain of our country?

[Edited on August 21, 2016 at 8:29 PM. Reason : Lots of neo-Nazi and confederate flag yokels at Houston naacp heavily armed with 14 word signs]

8/21/2016 8:28:41 PM

You'd be kicking out one of the largest economies in the country. Furthermore, despite being in "the South" Texas has an elite university system and is home base for Nasa (among many other awesome things).

8/22/2016 1:37:32 AM

I live in VT (thankfully I have escaped the clutches of a horrific NC government) and I can assure you there is little in the way of secession talk . About the worst that will happen this year is we may actually elect a GOP governor because of turnout drop with Bernie losing the presidential nomination and the fact that Shumlin really sucked in the end. Of course being Republican here is still left of Hillary Clinton.

8/22/2016 8:39:20 AM

Texas seceding would probably hurt the country geopolitically.

Vermont, not so much.

https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/geopolitics-united-states-part-1-inevitable-empire

Quote :

"But even with the Louisiana Purchase, owning was not the same as securing, and all the gains of the Ohio and Louisiana settlement efforts required the permanent securing of New Orleans. Clearly, the biggest potential security threat to the United States was newly independent Mexico, the border with which was only 150 kilometers from New Orleans. In fact, New Orleans' security was even more precarious than such a small distance suggested. Most of eastern Texas was forested plains and hills with ample water supplies — ideal territory for hosting and supporting a substantial military force. In contrast, southern Louisiana was swamp. Only the city of New Orleans itself could house forces, and they would need to be supplied from another location via ship. It did not require a particularly clever military strategy for one to envision a Mexican assault on the city. The United States defused and removed this potential threat by encouraging the settlement of not just its own side of the border region but the other side as well, pushing until the legal border reflected the natural border — the barrens of the desert. Just as the American plan for dealing with Canada was shaped by Canada's geographic weakness, Washington's efforts to first shield against and ultimately take over parts of Mexico were shaped by Mexico's geographic shortcomings. (cut) The American effort against Mexico took place in two theaters. The first was Texas, and the primary means was settlement as enabled by the Austin family. Most Texas scholars begin the story of Texas with Stephen F. Austin, considered to be the dominant personality in Texas' formation. Stratfor starts earlier with Stephen's father, Moses Austin. In December 1796, Moses relocated from Virginia to then-Spanish Missouri — a region that would, within a decade, become part of the Louisiana Purchase — and began investing in mining operations. He swore fealty to the Spanish crown but obtained permission to assist with settling the region — something he did with American, not Spanish, citizens. Once Missouri became American territory, Moses shifted his attention south to the new border and used his contacts in the Spanish government to replicate his Missouri activities in Spanish Tejas. After Moses' death in 1821, his son took over the family business of establishing American demographic and economic interests on the Mexican side of the border. Whether the Austins were American agents or simply profiteers is irrelevant; the end result was an early skewing of Tejas in the direction of the United States. Stephen's efforts commenced the same year as his father's death, which was the same year that Mexico's long war of independence against Spain ended. At that time, Spanish/Mexican Tejas was nearly devoid of settlers — Anglo or Hispanic — so the original 300 families that Stephen F. Austin helped settle in Tejas immediately dominated the territory's demography and economy. And from that point on the United States not so quietly encouraged immigration into Mexican Tejas. Once Tejas' population identified more with the United States than it did with Mexico proper, the hard work was already done. The remaining question was how to formalize American control, no small matter. When hostilities broke out between Mexico City and these so-called "Texians," U.S. financial interests — most notably the U.S. regional reserve banks — bankrolled the Texas Revolution of 1835-1836. It was in this war that one of the most important battles of the modern age was fought. After capturing the Alamo, Mexican dictator Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna marched north and then east with the intention of smashing the Texian forces in a series of engagements. With the Texians outnumbered by a factor of more than five to one, there was every indication that the Mexican forces would prevail over the Texian rebels. But with no small amount of luck the Texians managed not only to defeat the Mexican forces at the Battle of San Jacinto but also capture Santa Anna himself and force a treaty of secession upon the Mexican government. An independent Texas was born and the Texians became Texans. However, had the battle gone the other way the Texian forces would not have simply been routed but crushed. It was obvious to the Mexicans that the Texians had been fighting with weapons made in the United States, purchased from the United States with money lent by the United States. Since there would have been no military force between the Mexican army and New Orleans, it would not have required a particularly ingenious plan for Mexican forces to capture New Orleans. It could well have been Mexico — not the United States — that controlled access to the North American core. But Mexican supremacy over North America was not to be, and the United States continued consolidating. The next order of business was ensuring that Texas neither fell back under Mexican control nor was able to persist as an independent entity. Texas was practically a still-born republic. The western half of Texas suffers from rocky soil and aridity, and its rivers are for the most part unnavigable. Like Mexico, its successful development would require a massive application of capital, and it attained its independence only by accruing a great deal of debt. That debt was owed primarily to the United States, which chose not to write off any upon conclusion of the war. Add in that independent Texas had but 40,000 people (compared to the U.S. population at the time of 14.7 million) and the future of the new country was — at best — bleak. Texas immediately applied for statehood, but domestic (both Texan and American) political squabbles and a refusal of Washington to accept Texas' debt as an American federal responsibility prevented immediate annexation. Within a few short years, Texas' deteriorating financial position combined with a revenge-minded Mexico hard by its still-disputed border forced Texas to accede to the United States on Washington's terms in 1845. From that point the United States poured sufficient resources into its newest territory (ultimately exchanging approximately one-third of Texas' territory for the entirety of the former country's debt burden in 1850, giving Texas its contemporary shape) and set about enforcing the new U.S.-Mexico border."

8/25/2016 8:42:04 AM