A Right To Secede?

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This discussion is not about merely the "union of the states", nor is the context of any argument denying the recognized value then of that union.

They did not always assert that the union was the "best choice of liberty and freedom", but rather that it was the best choice at that time, and had severe caveats to that choice, even at that time, with the union being contingent upon the federal government being bound and limited to only certain enumerated powers, so as to protect individual rights and freedoms, along with state sovereignty, ... and even then, under those strict terms, the Constitution did not easily pass consensus.


There was not then any general recognition of the "concept of disunion to <only> to reset the union", and I believe what you're referring to is an idea advanced by Jefferson to 'reset' the laws <and constitution> of the country with every generation, something that only he advanced, and was profoundly rejected by Madison and others.

Furthermore, this nation is founded upon the principle of "separate little nations", and these being sovereign, not the federal government, and reserved the right to leave the union with that sovereignty, whenever the people should feel the need to withdraw. As shown, this concept was strongly supported by Madison, Randolph and other founders in both Ratification Statements, and state constitutions, and was not ever rejected at the time.

The Constitutional convention set out to reset the current Constitution. A reset was the entire point of the founders writing a new Constitution.

 

[Master PO]

The Constitutional convention set out to reset the current Constitution. A reset was the entire point of the founders writing a new Constitution.

the constitutional convention set out to rewrite the articles of confederation to fix the problems they were having with it.

such as trade wars and barriers, and money printing by the state causing inflation, no authority in the government to enforce any laws, violated by the states of the confederation.

they did not go to the constitutional convention to ...........create a new constitution.

so if you mean reset as to..... fix things with the articles you are correct.

 

[Trip]

Yes, you answered my question but inaccurately. The correct answer is in a government court the citizen juror is the protector of Rights.

Constitutional America can survive its internal and external enemies but cannot survive a foolish citizenry.

Really? When did we have a "government court the citizen juror" protect our rights regarding ObamaCare?

It has not, and yet that was a fundamental change of the relationship between citizen and subject, and all without an amendment.

The reality is we have no protections whatsoever from the enemies within, particularly not since their judgments within the government invariably empower the government at the expense of individual rights. And at the onset this nation's Founders had no doubts that such would be the cause of this nation's demise, expressing this concept in a variety of ways.

The only "foolish citizenry" are those who imagine that government "form" might somehow protect the "substance" of individual freedom, ignoring the fact that "form" has been repeatedly been used to deny freedom by bureaucratized process. But then those foolish citizens have imagined they might remedy the problem, if only they'd vote harder and with more conscience .... next time!

 

[Trip]

the constitutional convention set out to rewrite the articles of confederation to fix the problems they were having with it.

such as trade wars and barriers, and money printing by the state causing inflation, no authority in the government to enforce any laws, violated by the states of the confederation.

they did not go to the constitutional convention to ...........create a new constitution.

so if you mean reset as to..... fix things with the articles you are correct.

I think what he was referring to by "reset" was Jefferson's idea that the Constitution and laws be reset every generation, 19 years or so, which is not recognized by anyone but Jefferson. If not, then I agree that the idea that the Constitution was a "reset" of the Articles of Confederation" is in utterly inaccurate claim.

 

[Trip]

The Constitutional convention set out to reset the current Constitution. A reset was the entire point of the founders writing a new Constitution.

No, it was not a reset of the Articles of Confederation, but rather only a limited expansion of the terms government might operate under, while maintaining the fundamental principles of this nation's founding documents, inclusive of the Declaration of Independence.

If what you say were true, then the Articles of Confederation <along with the DOI> would not be listed as this country's Organic Law, in the U.S. Code.

 

[AllanHampton]

Well then you'd be wagering foolishly. No, they wouldn't. The document itself is not what is scared. but rather its principles are.

Obeisance to a document whose principles are no longer observed is nothing but a means to guarantee enslavement by ignorant superstition, form raised well above substance, and reality being irrelevant.

Generally myself and other Conservatives recognize an ongoing problem with the elevation of form above substance from the Left, with this seen in "gay marriage" and other false equivalences involved in social engineering.

You also evidently missed the quote, and the context, upon which my comment was made:

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power"

Alexander Hamilton Feb 23, 1775, The Farmer Refuted​

One should recognize that this quote has a whole range of concepts rejected by the Left. First that the "sacred rights of mankind" are not all that sacred, with the parchment being 'antiquated', not at all progressive, and subject to varied interpretations to suit contemporary times. Second, that the those rights are not "human nature" but are subject to redefinition and addition by the government. Third, that there is nothing about those rights that is 'divine', or originating from beyond the hand of man to alter or abolish. And fourth, that those rights can indeed be erased and obscured by 'mortal power'. and even redefined by the hand of man, ... but only a select few whom they agree with.

There is nothing sacred about those parchments themselves, but about what they uphold, making the substance far more important than the "form", the document itself. The same is true of the American flag, and not so surprisingly those most willing to burn that flag, are consistently those who reject the substance of what is America, for socialist-Marxist ideologies.

Evidently we have opposing understandings concerning the Constitution and Citizen's Duties in Citizenship. In the political arena I am committed to what is written in the 1787 Constitution.

However, we agree, I think, on the corruption of government (what is going on) and the I don't care attitude of the citizenry. But, I do not blame what is going on, on the Constitution. The government we have today is not the government created by the 1787 Constitution. I blame the citizenry for allowing a corrupt government to remain in office.

We do not agree on how to fix our corrupt government, nor agree on what our Rights are, their purpose and power or force, or where Rights came from.

 

[Master PO]

I think what he was referring to by "reset" was Jefferson's idea that the Constitution and laws be reset every generation, 19 years or so, which is not recognized by anyone but Jefferson. If not, then I agree that the idea that the Constitution was a "reset" of the Articles of Confederation" is in utterly inaccurate claim.

are you agreeing with my statement of disagreeing.....because i am having a brain fart over it.

 

[haymarket]

SO .............. Secession.

So am I am I or am I not a US citizen if my state secedes from the union?

 

[Master PO]

are you agreeing with my statement of disagreeing.....because i am having a brain fart over it.

i bet you liked the brain fart section..... of my statement....hay..its good to keep a little bit of humor floating around, stress kills.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

So am I am I or am I not a US citizen if my state secedes from the union?

Yes, you would still be a US citizen unless you were a willing participant in the secession effort...

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

let me rephrase it then, if a state seceded, and the federal government used those actions on the people of a state, would you protest those acts, or would you be silent on the subject?

Your hypothetical question is still over simplified

wrong!....because as stated before it is NOT the state government, it is the people of the state that are seceding, and using the state government as its vehicle to execute that process. as a citizen of the u.s you are not bound to stay where you are, ...to say i am not getting to be an American anymore, ...because i refuse to move, but stay where i am in a weak argument..because you have still free will do do as you please, no one is holding you.

a state is made up of its people and the people of a state chose their constitution and their way of life, its not in the state government hands or the federal governments hands to determine that.as explained before people have a RIGHT to self government, one, a few, of many cannot determine what self government will be it has to come from the people as whole from the state.

My property/ my house cannot get up and walk to another State just to satisfy the wants of a portion of this State.

Wrong.....a state has it own constitution, which runs parallel to the federal Constitution, if the state government tried to secede and then threw out its state constitution, that would be coup and unlawful, and it would be the duty of the u.s to act upon it. Utah was territory then ......they had no constitution until 1895, and from what your stating ,remember that was before the civil war, the federal constitution did not even apply to states then only the federal government, ....so why could not the territory be a what ever it wishes to be, its not a state, and its not under the federal constitution at that time.

Territories of the United States of America are under the direct power of the Constitution since there isnt any State Government.

Territories: Powers of Congress Over :: Article IV. States' Relations :: US Constitution :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

In the territories, Congress has the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and local, and has full legislative power over all subjects upon which a state legislature might act.316 It may legislate directly with respect to the local affairs of a territory or it may transfer that function to a legislature elected by the citizens thereof,317 which will then be invested with all legislative power except as limited by the Constitution of the United States and acts of Congress.318 In 1886, Congress prohibited the enactment by territorial legislatures of local or special laws on enumerated subjects.319 The constitutional guarantees of private rights are applicable in territories which have been made a part of the United States by congressional action320 but not in unincorporated territories.321 Congress may establish, or may authorize the territorial legislature to create, legislative courts whose jurisdiction is derived from statutes enacted pursuant to this section other than from article III.322 Such courts may exercise admiralty jurisdiction despite the fact that such jurisdiction may be exercised in the States only by constitutional courts.

when the nation was founded, power was placed in the hands of the people and the states, both shared power, which is what MIXED government is. which is why america was not any type of democracy, power is vested in the people but it not totally vested as a whole... (meaning the people get to determine anything they wish, powers they can over turn, rights they cannot overturn).....if the people of a state come together they are excising their rights to change their government(self government) they have and institute a new one, even Lincoln believed states by the rights of the people to secede from the union, before the civil war.

your saying that if a small number of people in the state who choose to not secede, then they can block the rightsof the large group of people who want to secede. now i know this sounds like democracy and to a point it is, but their is one difference, and that is the minority is not being forced to be part of a seceding state, they still have the power to executive their rights to be part of the u.s. by returning to another state.........no force is being applied to them to prevent that..........in democracies ..force is applied and the people have no choice.

All power is in the hands of the people period end of story. Its We the people not We the States.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

i simply dont see that here, because no force is being applied to those people by the new government to make them do anything.....government is not making them take any action...no government official is coming to them and directing any action from them. the state still has it state constitution in tact, which provides for life liberty and property, every state constitution provides these. the state is not turning into a lawless frontier it still has rule of law, and a state attempting to trash it constitution during secession by the government, would require federal government action.

You are just pretending that there isnt any force to make your argument look valid. No State in this country is populated by a section of the country that will be agreement about secession. If you say otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.

again the state would be bound to its state constitution, which can only be changed by the people, not the government, your making the assertions that the government will most definitely be tyrannical, and that not known...your trying to predicted the future in your favor.

no state land locked in the u.s. could possibly secede without a port or access to one by another seceding state.

but you paint a state as doom and gloom, it is possible a state could secede, removed federal controls, and they the state institute voluntary taxes, remove all the former federal regulation and institute few and more defined regulation better suited to the state, follow the true ideas of the founders.

your painting the most worst scenario your can think of, trying to make secession look evil and tyrannical....and that's impossible to know.

If the State Government changed the State Constitution what could the people do about it without the US Constitution?

No I am not "painting the most worst scenario" here, there could be worse circumstances. There isnt a code of American ethics that politicians cant break this is the real world where people can be real assholes. Take the South for example the Confederacy Government was full of assholes.

 

[haymarket]

Yes, you would still be a US citizen unless you were a willing participant in the secession effort...

and as you have already agreed a few weeks ago, your right to vote for president and the electors would be denied to you just as it was during the civil war in seceding states. And thus a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

and as you have already agreed a few weeks ago, your right to vote for president and the electors would be denied to you just as it was during the civil war in seceding states. And thus a violation of the 14th amendment.

Was there a 14th during the Civil War?

 

[haymarket]

Was there a 14th during the Civil War?

Wisely pointed out. And that is why one can indeed make a case for secession in 1861 but NOT today.

 

[Trip]

Evidently we have opposing understandings concerning the Constitution and Citizen's Duties in Citizenship. In the political arena I am committed to what is written in the 1787 Constitution.

However, we agree, I think, on the corruption of government (what is going on) and the I don't care attitude of the citizenry. But, I do not blame what is going on, on the Constitution. The government we have today is not the government created by the 1787 Constitution. I blame the citizenry for allowing a corrupt government to remain in office.

We do not agree on how to fix our corrupt government, nor agree on what our Rights are, their purpose and power or force, or where Rights came from.

There is still only one Constitution in this country's history, so there's no need to refer to it as the "1787 Constitution".


How could the Constitution be blamed for what is going on, when that Constitution is no longer applied, and really is not 'in play' at this point.

THe citizens have not just allowed corrupt government to remain in office, but have participated in such "Progressive" corruptions of the Constitution from 1909 to 1933, with there being six amendments in 24 years, grossly corrupting the very principle of the Constitution, from balance of powers, to the states powers being undermined <17th Amdt>, to actually pretending that the Constitution was about granting or denying freedoms of citizens < 19th/21st>. to enabling agendas against citizens via allowing the direct tax on income <16th>, all coinciding with the Progressive presidents of Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson.

 

[Trip]

are you agreeing with my statement of disagreeing.....because i am having a brain fart over it.

I'm agreeing with it, particularly after he clarified his reference to being applicable to the Constitution being a "reset" of the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Trip]

So am I am I or am I not a US citizen if my state secedes from the union?

I answered that there was no definitive answer.

Much would hinge on whether or not the U.S federal government would choose to recognize the ongoing citizenships of those who continue to reside in the seceded state<s>. They likely would do so, at least for a brief grace period, but probably would not want to have their citizens have continued residency in that seceded state. I could provide an extended rationale for why this would likely be the case, based on both considerations terms of allegiance as well as financial concerns, but I've really got no interest in doing so given the objectionable nature of your displays.

As I've said, repeatedly, there is no definitive answer, despite the fact you demand one, and that is the most honest and accurate answer possible.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Wisely pointed out. And that is why one can indeed make a case for secession in 1861 but NOT today.

Hay, if the government truly worked for its citizens, do you believe it would try to deny you any "rights"?

 

[Trip]

Yes, you would still be a US citizen unless you were a willing participant in the secession effort...

That's applying existing considerations of act of war, or other deliberate acts by the individual implying separation from this country, to the act of secession, which involves no such direct act against this country, and is not itself an act against this country, but may nonetheless involve special-case considerations.

 

[Bonzai]

Hay, if the government truly worked for its citizens, do you believe it would try to deny you any "rights"?

The movement to secede will founder on the sentiments of such patriots as "Jack Hays".....................

 

[AlabamaPaul]

That's applying existing considerations of act of war, or other deliberate acts by the individual implying separation from this country, to the act of secession, which involves no such direct act against this country, and is not itself an act against this country, but may nonetheless involve special-case considerations.

There are specific acts one must take and/or laws/acts that must be violated before a US citizen loses that distinction...

 

[polgara]

The movement to secede will founder on the sentiments of such patriots as "Jack Hays".....................

Bonz, you know that Mangas would call "foul," because Jack has left the building, and is not here to defend himself! tsk tsk :shock:

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The movement to secede will founder on the sentiments of such patriots as "Jack Hays".....................

He and I tend to disagree on these points...

 

[Bonzai]

Bonz, you know that Mangas would call "foul," because Jack has left the building, and is not here to defend himself! tsk tsk :shock:

LOL..............I was merely noting that those who see the US as "indivisable" are pretty immune to being converted...................

 

[polgara]

LOL..............I was merely noting that those who see the US as "indivisable" are pretty immune to being converted...................

:agree: Forget conversion! :lamo: