Secession Is A Radical Solution That Sadly Doesn’t Seem So Radical Any More

[Fishrrman]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2021/03/02/secession-is-a-radical-solution-that-sadly-doesnt-seem-so-radical-any-more/

Secession Is A Radical Solution That Sadly Doesn’t Seem So Radical Any More
by Vince
March 2, 2021



excerpt:
======
America was fundamentally built on freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.  Freedom of speech, religion, the right to peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government.  But it’s not just the Constitution itself that makes America.  It’s ideas that flow from it and our history.  Free markets, private property, entrepreneurship, 4th of July, baseball, high school debate team, cars, suburbs, bake sales, Thanksgiving dinner, spelling bees, Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas antlers,  the National Anthem and more.

All of that, both the actual rights and the ideas beyond them all are under attack in America of 2021.  Whether petty tyrants using the Covid hysteria to eviscerate our freedoms of religion and assembly and to crush our businesses or social media oligarchs shutting down debate in the 21st century town square or education departments causing Martin Luther King to spin in his grave as they abandon his dream, the America of Norman Rockwell paintings is being torn apart idea by idea by idea.

This past summer Americans were helpless as cities from coast to coast burned in response to the killing of George Floyd and they were told the violence was understandable and “mostly peaceful protests”.  This past year many Americans saw their lives upended as their jobs or businesses were destroyed, their families turned into strangers and churches and schools turned into ghost towns as a result of a disease with a 99.99% survival rate, but we were told that America was facing the gravest public health threat in history.  Now we’re watching as children are taught that math is racist, that hard work is racist, and there is no difference between boys and girls and we’re told that all of this is healthy and reasonable.
...
America has become a nation where objective reality no longer matters, where the free exchange of ideas is no longer allowed and where the exercise of an individual’s rights are tolerated only to the degree that they do not hurt the feelings of some aggrieved victim class.  America has become a bizzarro world where everything from science to math and history to law are no longer constants upon which society rests but rather malleable frameworks for the destruction of everything that does not comport with todays’ woke mores.

And so it is thorough this looking glass one wonders what is the solution?

More at URL above...

[Fishrrman]

Is it time for a New Continental Congress yet?
(read up on what the first one was about...)

[Sled Dog]

The Constitution forbids state secession.  Individuals have the freedom to secede.  But they can't take their land with them.   When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.

Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.

The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them.  Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.   

[skeeter]

The Constitution forbids state secession.  Individuals have the freedom to secede.  But they can't take their land with them.   When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.

Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.

The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them.  Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.

Think for a minute how a successful succession would play out - presumably restoring the primacy of the Constitution, the resulting new country would succeed economically and socially far beyond what the progressive rat-run remnant of the nation left behind is capable of, thus attracting brainstem leftists (who do not understand the cause and effect) to immigrate to the new promised land, rapidly turning it into the same kind of sh*thole they ruined then abandoned.

No, its gotta be here and no farther.

[Bigun]

The Constitution forbids state secession. 

Would you be so kind as to direct me to the language in the constitution that says that?  I have searched diligently and cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra which locations I am unable to discern.

Thanks in advance!

@Sled Dog

[Sled Dog]

Think for a minute how a successful succession would play out - presumably restoring the primacy of the Constitution, the resulting new country would succeed economically and socially far beyond what the progressive rat-run remnant of the nation left behind is capable of, thus attracting brainstem leftists (who do not understand the cause and effect) to immigrate to the new promised land, rapidly turning it into the same kind of sh*thole they ruined then abandoned.

No, its gotta be here and no farther.

Secession won't be successful, so there's not much point in imagining if it could be.

1) This ain't the 19th Century any more, communications are instantaneous and our enemies would gladly ally openly with China and Russia to defeat the Americans, just like they are doing covertly right now.

2) In 1860 the United States was still a junior power, as far as the major powers were concerned.   They were entertained, but forebore to interfere.    Today, the United States is THE global superpower.   A civil war in the US would spell global chaos and the minor powers nipping at our heels would most definitely seek advantage by piling on.

3) States seeking secession are already infected with the Rodent Virus.   They will not escape it by shutting their borders...which they can't close because of economics.

4) Why did the Fouinders give us the Constitution in the first place?   Because the states were failing to work together as a  unit and the balkanized colonies would have been easy pickings for France and Britain to re-steal piecemeal.   

5) The one remarkably successful act of secession in modern history wasn't the story of a people successfully telling their parent country to buzz off.   If was the act of those colonists forestalling their execution while they desperately sought the aid of a power nearly equal to the one they were thumbing their noses at, and it was the intervention of France to punish England that made the US truly independent.   Ain't nobody goin' to help out the States in Secession this time.   China wouldn't let anyone do that, even if any other country agreed with the Americans' goals...which they don't.  Not a single country supports the American ideal.   We defeat the Rodents on our ground, despite foreign efforts to suppress us, and that's our only option.

So, nah, secession is for children.  Those people need to stay and fight.   

[Sled Dog]

Would you be so kind as to direct me to the language in the constitution that says that?  I have searched diligently and cannot seem to find it. Perhaps it is in a penumbra which locations I am unable to discern.

Thanks in advance!

@Sled Dog

You never read the Constitution?

Preamble

We the People

Not "Us States".   

Article I, Section 8, Clause whatever  (15) directs the Congress of the United States to quell insurrection.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article I, Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

States can't make armies, enter treaties, impose tariffs, etc, etc, etc, cannot perform the acts required of a independent sovereign nation.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
The president shall defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

The Constitution applies to all citizens, wherever they may live.

Article 6,
The Supremacy Clause.  The Constitution supersedes all other laws.   Including misguided attempts by a state to declare the Constitution null and void.

[Bigun]

You never read the Constitution?

PreambleNot "Us States".   

Article I, Section 8, Clause whatever  (15) directs the Congress of the United States to quell insurrection.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1
Article I, Section 10
States can't make armies, enter treaties, impose tariffs, etc, etc, etc, cannot perform the acts required of a independent sovereign nation.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8
The president shall defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States.

Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1
The Constitution applies to all citizens, wherever they may live.

Article 6,
The Supremacy Clause.  The Constitution supersedes all other laws.   Including misguided attempts by a state to declare the Constitution null and void.

Thanks for the reply @Sled Dog!

I have read the Constitution many times and have the ability to interpret the English language REALLY well.

I still don't see one word in all that which would prohibit a sovereign state from withdrawing from a union it had freely joined. 

"Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government.

The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common..."


“Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent."

Both excerpted from:
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:

WITH
NOTES OF REFERENCE,
TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
AND OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
IN FIVE VOLUMES.
WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME,
CONTAINING
SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY
TO FORM A CONNECTED
VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA,
AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION.
BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER,
PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND
ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA.
PHILADELPHIA:
PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL,
NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET.
ROBERT CARR, PRINTER.
1803.

[goatprairie]

This might be splitting hairs, but while individuals have the right to rebel against an unjust government, states do not have the right to unilaterally secede.

[Sled Dog]

Thanks for the reply @Sled Dog!

I have read the Constitution many times and have the ability to interpret the English language REALLY well.

I still don't see one word in all that which would prohibit a sovereign state from withdrawing from a union it had freely joined. 

They were pointed out to you.

Nobody can make you drink if you don't want to.   

The Constitution is still the Constitution.  It's words have not been changed.

Doesn't matter what some hack in 1803 wrote.  I'm not going to go into a quote war.   I'm merely going to point out that the Constitution in no place authorizes the states or any other agency the authority to sever the People from the protections of the Constitution.

[Sled Dog]

This might be splitting hairs, but while individuals have the right to rebel against an unjust government, states do not have the right to unilaterally secede.

Secession involves two actions:

Divorcing persons not in favor of secession from the Constitution.

Forcibly removing the tracts of land occupied by the seceding state forcibly from the geographical map of the United States.

Nowhere in the Constitution is either action permitted.  In fact, acts of rebellion are clearly not allowed under the Constitution.

The whole intent behind the Constitution was to end the centrifugal impetus acting on the Thirteen Colonies and to weave those increasingly independent states back into a singular unified and strong nation.

Secession is not necessary.

Secession is not desirable.

Secession is not allowed.

And, most importantly, secession will not be allowed to occur.   Nor would it resolve any issues if it is attempted.

Secession is a fool's romantic escape into impossible fantasy, an avoidance of the reality that rescuing this nation for our posterity is going to require hard work and heartbreak.  Sole alleged adults can't deal with reality.   Rodents drink the bottle labeled "racism" to cope, otherwise devoted Americans dream of running away and hiding in imaginary holes, as if the monsters among us won't know where the holes are.

[Bigun]

They were pointed out to you.

Nobody can make you drink if you don't want to.   

The Constitution is still the Constitution.  It's words have not been changed.

Doesn't matter what some hack in 1803 wrote.  I'm not going to go into a quote war.   I'm merely going to point out that the Constitution in no place authorizes the states or any other agency the authority to sever the People from the protections of the Constitution.

What that "hack" wrote back in 1803 was THE law reference library in this land for 50 years!  Only after all the founders were dead could the revisionists work their magic to make this country into something our founders never intended.

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "

Abel Upshur, The Federal government: Its true nature and character

(Abel Upshur served as Secretary of the Navy 1841-43)

But you can continue to swallow the revisionist BS for as long as you like.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The Constitution forbids state secession.  Individuals have the freedom to secede.  But they can't take their land with them.   When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.

Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.

The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them.  Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.

That is not a fact,

One other fact is that a sovereign state entered a contract with other states.  It is not a suicide pact as the state remains sovereign to decide what is best for itself if that contract is not honored.

And it is a fact it has not been by other parties.

[sneakypete]

Is it time for a New Continental Congress yet?
(read up on what the first one was about...)

@Fishrrman

We will know in 2024 if the current Republic is worth saving,or if we have to cut loose the dead weight.

[sneakypete]

The Constitution forbids state secession.  Individuals have the freedom to secede.  But they can't take their land with them.   When the person secedes, he announces it by LEAVING the country.

Secession won't be allowed by the Rodents, hence war.

The seceding states will still have their internal Rodents along with them.  Montana keeps electing Rodent senators, even though they voted Trump.

@Sled Dog

If you allow the left to stop you,you were never serious about it to start with. Secession isn't an alternate form of kissy-face. It is a declaration of war.

[sneakypete]

The Constitution forbids state secession.   

@Sled Dog

HorseHillary! Which words in the expression "form a voluntary union" is it that confuses you?

[Sled Dog]

What that "hack" wrote back in 1803 was THE law reference library in this land for 50 years! 

And what you just quoted was an expressed opinion of no greater validity than when Roberts decided that ObamaCare was Constitutional.
'
The Constitution forbids rebellion and requires the Congress to suppress it.

Any opinion that states otherwise is not consistent with the Constitution and is thus what we layman call "wrong".

I don't care if it was Blackstone, or a Redstone missile.  The opinion was wrong.

[Sled Dog]

@Sled Dog

HorseHillary! Which words in the expression "form a voluntary union" is it that confuses you?

There's a difference between "forming a voluntary union" and denying the citizens of a state their protections under the Constitution.

What part of the fact that the Constitution was written to protect the citizens eludes you?

Where in the Constitution is any state allowed to deny their citizens their freedom of religion, their freedom to associate (including their freedom to associate with Americans as Americans who live in other states), their right to keep and bear arms, their equal protection under the law?

Where in the Constitution can a state law, even one as stupid as a Bill of Secession, supersede the rights of those citizens protected by the Constitution?    And citizens cannot be protected by the Constitution if the states were allowed to unilaterally and abritrarily extract their entire geography from the union voluntarily entered into.

Voluntary entrance does not automatically grant voluntary exit at a later date.

The State of Loseranna was PURCHASED by the United States as a territory from France.   What lawful right does the state of Loseranna, incorporated under federal law, have to extract it's geography and citizens from the geopolitical entity of the United States?   The territory of the State of Tennessee was claimed by the United States at the end of the Revolutionary war (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Treaty of Paris called the western boundary of the new nation as the Ohio and Mississippi rivers?) under what basis did the Tennesseans claim to be able to take that property from the United States?   

Yeah.  The people of those places can secede all they want to.  All they have to do is pick up their feet and start walking away.   Since they don't want to fight to save America, good riddance to them.  They shouldn't expect to be allowed back in, though.   And how are they any different than Rosie O'Donuts and the other Hollyweird trash always whining about what they'll do if the American wins the next presidential election?   We never see them leaving, either.

[Bigun]

And what you just quoted was an expressed opinion of no greater validity than when Roberts decided that ObamaCare was Constitutional.
'
The Constitution forbids rebellion and requires the Congress to suppress it.

Any opinion that states otherwise is not consistent with the Constitution and is thus what we layman call "wrong".

I don't care if it was Blackstone, or a Redstone missile.  The opinion was wrong.

Then why, pray tell, did NO ONE challenge those words prior to the early 1860s.  A period when a great many of those in the founding era were still alive?   I cannot find a single instance of anyone doing that but perhaps you can show it to me.

Never mind, I already know the answer,  They ARE NOT wrong.  YOU are!

@Sled Dog

[Sled Dog]

@Sled Dog

If you allow the left to stop you,you were never serious about it to start with. Secession isn't an alternate form of kissy-face. It is a declaration of war.

Now you're getting to the money shots.

No "secession" has ever happened without war.

Ask Tom, the Declaration Guy.

Ask Jeff, the Extra President the Democrats had under Lincoln. 

Don't pretend that some new confederation of states in secession would be simply allowed to part ways.   Not only is there way too much at stake, but the fascists of the Usurping Party Of Senile Old Men and Slutty Tramp Biracial Whores would suffer gigantic enlargement of the spleen if any dared to escape their totalitarian urges.

So secession means war.

Which means the fools discussing secession should first discuss how they personally are prepared for war.

Maybe some people need to re-learn the Star Spangled Banner?   The later verses.

Oh, and BTW, people DID present opposing opinions, opinions against secession, in the 1850's, including prominent residents of the southern states.   But that means nothing and I'm not going to do your homework for you.   I will point out merely that I've cited the Constitution itself, you have not done so even once.

I'm waiting for you to pull the Tenth Amendment Card.   You should remember that the Tenth Amendment discusses those rights and privileges not explicitly granted to Congress.   Requiring Congress to suppress rebellion is pretty explicit.

[Sled Dog]

Then why, pray tell, did NO ONE challenge those words prior to the early 1860s.  A period when a great many of those in the founding era were still alive?   I cannot find a single instance of anyone doing that but perhaps you can show it to me.

Never mind, I already know the answer,  They ARE NOT wrong.  YOU are!

@Sled Dog

There wasn't any need to challenge someone's false opinion until such time as the false opinion serves to fuel false actions.

And, yeah, you're committing the fatal logical error of Argument From Authority.

I'm supposed to counter with other authorities who presume to present opposing opinions, and you're frustrated because I'm presenting opposing facts.   Makes life hard for the presenter of the fatal flaw, doesn't it?

[sneakypete]

There's a difference between "forming a voluntary union" and denying the citizens of a state their protections under the Constitution.

What part of the fact that the Constitution was written to protect the citizens eludes you?

Where in the Constitution is any state allowed to deny their citizens their freedom of religion, their freedom to associate (including their freedom to associate with Americans as Americans who live in other states), their right to keep and bear arms, their equal protection under the law?

Where in the Constitution can a state law, even one as stupid as a Bill of Secession, supersede the rights of those citizens protected by the Constitution?    And citizens cannot be protected by the Constitution if the states were allowed to unilaterally and abritrarily extract their entire geography from the union voluntarily entered into.

Voluntary entrance does not automatically grant voluntary exit at a later date.

The State of Loseranna was PURCHASED by the United States as a territory from France.   What lawful right does the state of Loseranna, incorporated under federal law, have to extract it's geography and citizens from the geopolitical entity of the United States?   The territory of the State of Tennessee was claimed by the United States at the end of the Revolutionary war (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Treaty of Paris called the western boundary of the new nation as the Ohio and Mississippi rivers?) under what basis did the Tennesseans claim to be able to take that property from the United States?   

Yeah.  The people of those places can secede all they want to.  All they have to do is pick up their feet and start walking away.   Since they don't want to fight to save America, good riddance to them.  They shouldn't expect to be allowed back in, though.   And how are they any different than Rosie O'Donuts and the other Hollyweird trash always whining about what they'll do if the American wins the next presidential election?   We never see them leaving, either.

@Sled Dog

Once again,what parts of the words "formed a voluntary union" is it that is confusing you?

[Sled Dog]

@Sled Dog

Once again,what parts of the words "formed a voluntary union" is it that is confusing you?

You believe that repeating a question that's already been refuted refutes the refutation?

Interesting.

[Bigun]

There wasn't any need to challenge someone's false opinion until such time as the false opinion serves to fuel false actions.

And, yeah, you're committing the fatal logical error of Argument From Authority.

I'm supposed to counter with other authorities who presume to present opposing opinions, and you're frustrated because I'm presenting opposing facts.   Makes life hard for the presenter of the fatal flaw, doesn't it?

I'll take the unchallenged opinions of the noted authorities (multiple) I have posted over your BS any day my friend. And BTW: leaving a contract agreement that has been grossly abrogated multiple times does not constitute rebellion regardless of your worthless opinions.

[sneakypete]

You believe that repeating a question that's already been refuted refutes the refutation?

Interesting.

@Sled Dog

What *I* find interesting is you seem to think posting multiple paragraphs of babble negates a basic truth.