HUGE: Secession Moving Forward! Conservatives Vote To Break Away!

[rangerrebew]

HUGE: Secession Moving Forward! Conservatives Vote To Break Away!
byMatthew Holloway
June 26, 2021

On May 18th the votes for secession were counted and amazingly the results were in favor of conservatives breaking away from the government that has been alternatively neglectful and abusive to them. In the state of Oregon, five rural counties have voted to consider breaking away from the government in Portland to join Idaho. This is being explored in the hopes of finding a more sympathetic body politic in Boise that will more fairly represent their interests. The Oregon secession seems to be on.

The Epoch Times reports,

    “Voters in Malheur, Sherman, Grant, Baker, and Lake counties approved various measures that require county officials to take steps to look into moving the Idaho border west to incorporate the counties.

    The grassroots group Move Oregon’s Border for a Greater Idaho is aiming to have the eastern counties—which are mostly rural—join Idaho because they believe they would be better off with Idaho’s more conservative political leadership.

    “This election proves that rural Oregon wants out of Oregon,” lead petitioner Mike McCarter said in a statement to local media outlets on May 18. “If Oregon really believes in liberal values such as self-determination, the Legislature won’t hold our counties captive against our will. If we’re allowed to vote for which government officials we want, we should be allowed to vote for which government we want as well.”

https://thegoptimes.com/huge-secession-moving-forward-conservatives-vote-to-break-away-2/?utm_source=TGT%20Master%200521&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:32167667&utm_campaign=HUGE:%20Secession%20Moving%20Forward!%20Conservatives%20Vote%20To%20Break%20Away!%20(%231)

[goatprairie]

  Nothing will happen. By the constitution states are not allowed to make treaties with themselves.

[roamer_1]

AWESOME... But never really going to happen. Sovereignty means borders. Jurisdiction. That cannot be moved, or sovereignty means nothing.

SO while I am with all y'all that are attempting to jostle state borders in spirit, It is literally never going to happen. And if it does somehow, nothing could be more injurious to the sovereignty of the various states... So none for me thanks.

[HoustonSam]

AWESOME... But never really going to happen. Sovereignty means borders. Jurisdiction. That cannot be moved, or sovereignty means nothing.

SO while I am with all y'all that are attempting to jostle state borders in spirit, It is literally never going to happen. And if it does somehow, nothing could be more injurious to the sovereignty of the various states... So none for me thanks.

If, hypothetically, both states agreed, I don't think it would be injurious to sovereignty.  But I would never expect both states to agree in any real-world situation.

To me the more interesting question is whether there is a theory of secession from a state.  The theory of state secession from the FedGov rests on the fact that the states pre-dated and created the FedGov by ratifying the Constitution.  I don't think it's true that any state was created by a voluntary association of counties into a state constitution, in fact I think counties are generally created by the state.

[goatprairie]

If, hypothetically, both states agreed, I don't think it would be injurious to sovereignty.  But I would never expect both states to agree in any real-world situation.

To me the more interesting question is whether there is a theory of secession from a state.  The theory of state secession from the FedGov rests on the fact that the states pre-dated and created the FedGov by ratifying the Constitution.  I don't think it's true that any state was created by a voluntary association of counties into a state constitution, in fact I think counties are generally created by the state.

The original 13 colonies created the U.S. and ratified the Union. But the other 37 states were created by the U.S. government.
How can a state created by the U.S. government be considered sovereign? And since no state can have more powers/rights than another state, how can any state be considered sovereign?

[roamer_1]

If, hypothetically, both states agreed, I don't think it would be injurious to sovereignty.  But I would never expect both states to agree in any real-world situation.

That's right.

To me the more interesting question is whether there is a theory of secession from a state.  The theory of state secession from the FedGov rests on the fact that the states pre-dated and created the FedGov by ratifying the Constitution.  I don't think it's true that any state was created by a voluntary association of counties into a state constitution, in fact I think counties are generally created by the state.

That is the question. And I do not think it has precedence, with the exception of the moving of territorial borders in the recognition of various states. That would be an interesting angle, as those territories were recognized by the fed and altered in due time by the fed in the course of resolving dispute in the formation of a state. Interesting in theory, but cross-threaded in the practice of the will of the people defining the state.

[HoustonSam]

The original 13 colonies created the U.S. and ratified the Union. But the other 37 states were created by the U.S. government.
How can a state created by the U.S. government be considered sovereign? And since no state can have more powers/rights than another state, how can any state be considered sovereign?

Each of those other 37 states joined the union voluntarily, just as had the original 13, and each is sovereign to practice its Reserved Powers; the FedGov is sovereign to practice the Delegated Powers.  And as you point out, no state can have more rights than another state, so the latter 37 have the same rights as the original 13.

Fundamentally the question is whether secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.  The 10th Amendment reserves to the States and the People any power not specifically delegated to the FedGov, and the Constitution is silent on the question of secession, i.e. it delegates no power to the FedGov to hold any state within the Federal Union.  I conclude that secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.

[roamer_1]

The original 13 colonies created the U.S. and ratified the Union. But the other 37 states were created by the U.S. government.
How can a state created by the U.S. government be considered sovereign? And since no state can have more powers/rights than another state, how can any state be considered sovereign?

No. The territories existed even before they were territories - They were simply recognized as territories in a sense of admission to the union by the fed. They are not the creation of the fed. And in that, inherit the sovereignty due any state.

[roamer_1]

Fundamentally the question is whether secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.  The 10th Amendment reserves to the States and the People any power not specifically delegated to the FedGov, and the Constitution is silent on the question of secession, i.e. it delegates no power to the FedGov to hold any state within the Federal Union.  I conclude that secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.

Necessarily so in the raw natural basis of any contract - Coercion of the parties involved is limited to the full faith and service of the contract. If the contract is not performed in good faith, there is a natural remedy to quit the contract.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Each of those other 37 states joined the union voluntarily, just as had the original 13, and each is sovereign to practice its Reserved Powers; the FedGov is sovereign to practice the Delegated Powers.  And as you point out, no state can have more rights than another state, so the latter 37 have the same rights as the original 13.

Fundamentally the question is whether secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.  The 10th Amendment reserves to the States and the People any power not specifically delegated to the FedGov, and the Constitution is silent on the question of secession, i.e. it delegates no power to the FedGov to hold any state within the Federal Union.  I conclude that secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.

You are correct, sir.

And the poster also is confused that we continue abiding under the Constitution, which is a document created by the states to serve the states, not the other way around.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm scratching my head while looking at West Virgina and Arlington, Virginia.

[HoustonSam]

I'm scratching my head while looking at West Virgina and Arlington, Virginia.

The residents of then-western Virginia desired to reunite with the union; a rump pro-Union legislature in VA approved the "secession" of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863, and of course the Union government was entirely happy to approve as well.  Conveniently forgotten now is that West Virginia joined the union during the war as a slave state.

What is the issue with Arlington VA?

[Cyber Liberty]

The residents of then-western Virginia desired to reunite with the union; a rump pro-Union legislature in VA approved the "secession" of West Virginia from Virginia in 1863, and of course the Union government was entirely happy to approve as well.  Conveniently forgotten now is that West Virginia joined the union during the war as a slave state.

What is the issue with Arlington VA?

What we now call Arlington, VA was supposed to have been ceded to the District of Columbia, but the Northern States did not want a segment of the Slave States to be a part of the District.  That's why the District is a square, minus the part of the square that was supposed to be carved out of Virginia.

There's a discussion (at Goggle) of why the Northern States did not want a slave market based in the District of Columbia, but it's Saturday and I have Supper Duty tonight for my loving wife.  Can't look it up right now.

[HoustonSam]

What we now call Arlington, VA was supposed to have been ceded to the District of Columbia, but the Northern States did not want a segment of the Slave States to be a part of the District.  That's why the District is a square, minus the part of the square that was supposed to be carved out of Virginia.

There's a discussion (at Goggle) of why the Northern States did not want a slave market based in the District of Columbia, but it's Saturday and I have Supper Duty tonight for my loving wife.  Can't look it up right now.

DC originally included the entire square of territory on both sides of the Potomac, ceded by VA and MD.  The previously-VA portion, centered around the city of Alexandria with its large slave market, was "retrocessed" back to VA when trading in slaves was banned throughout DC as part of the Compromise of 1850.

[goatprairie]

No. The territories existed even before they were territories - They were simply recognized as territories in a sense of admission to the union by the fed. They are not the creation of the fed. And in that, inherit the sovereignty due any state.

Huh? They were sovereign territories before the fed. gov. made them states? Really?

[goatprairie]

Each of those other 37 states joined the union voluntarily, just as had the original 13, and each is sovereign to practice its Reserved Powers; the FedGov is sovereign to practice the Delegated Powers.  And as you point out, no state can have more rights than another state, so the latter 37 have the same rights as the original 13.

Fundamentally the question is whether secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.  The 10th Amendment reserves to the States and the People any power not specifically delegated to the FedGov, and the Constitution is silent on the question of secession, i.e. it delegates no power to the FedGov to hold any state within the Federal Union.  I conclude that secession from the Federal Union is a Reserved Power.

Why would the fed. gov. i.e. the Union create a state with the understanding that the state could unilaterally secede and declare itself an independent country?

[HoustonSam]

Why would the fed. gov. i.e. the Union create a state with the understanding that the state could unilaterally secede and declare itself an independent country?

No state was created by the FedGov/Union.  Not even AK or HI.

Territories were admitted to the union as states, but only according to the desire of the population in the territory.  No territory has been forcibly compelled into the union, although 11 states have been forcibly held within it.

[roamer_1]

Huh? They were sovereign territories before the fed. gov. made them states? Really?

Hell yeah. They were sovereign territories before the fed made them territories.

[AARguy]

From the Revolution to the Civil War, Americans have demonstrated their right and ability at self-determination. King George didn't approve. DC didn't like it. But it happened anyway.

America is two nations now. One likes to defend its borders. The other doesn't. One likes to give public funds away to anyone that asks for it. The other doesn't. One defends the right to bear arms to the point of allowing open or concealed carry without a permit. The other would strictly regulate gun ownership. One likes to see a central government control elections. The other doesn't. One likes to obey government decrees about opening schools, businesses, and recreation. The other doesn't.

We already have two nations in fact. All that is left is doing the paperwork.

Some will oppose what the future holds. Especially lawyers. But in the end, it is waht the PEOPLE WANT that counts.

Ask King George.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Why would the fed. gov. i.e. the Union create a state with the understanding that the state could unilaterally secede and declare itself an independent country?

Notwithstanding the fact that the Union never created any state, a contract between two parties only remains effective when both parties abide by the terms of the contract.

The entry into the Union was not a one way arrangement but a contract between two sovereign parties, the state/territory and the Union(representing the sovereign states as a group); as such, if one party decides not to abide by the terms, the other party is free to abrogate that contract and declare it no longer in force and effect.

These states were voluntarily brought into the Union, and the Union voluntarily accepted them.  This was definitely not coercion on either side.

[goatprairie]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Union never created any state, a contract between two parties only remains effective when both parties abide by the terms of the contract.

The entry into the Union was not a one way arrangement but a contract between two sovereign parties, the state/territory and the Union(representing the sovereign states as a group); as such, if one party decides not to abide by the terms, the other party is free to abrogate that contract and declare it no longer in force and effect.

These states were voluntarily brought into the Union, and the Union voluntarily accepted them.  This was definitely not coercion on either side.

"The Union never created any state"
What are the 37 states that were not original colonies?

[Absalom]

A reflection.
Sovereign Right emerged almost 400 years past, thru the Treaty of Westphalia
which settled the 30 Years War in 1648.
The term refers to the absolute & supreme power of the Monarch (later Parliament)
of the nation/state, with clearly defined borders, to carryout his official functions on
behalf of his legal citizens, free of outside (foreign) interference.
Ok, half-time is over; so let the urinary contest  continue!

[sneakypete]

Nothing will happen. By the constitution states are not allowed to make treaties with themselves.

@goatprarie


So what? The FACT that a large section of even ONE state wants to sends a message,and because of that message there might be even more doing the same.

Which could possible even lead to a change in the laws.

Beats the hell out of marching to the state capitol with pitch forks and torches,doesn't it?

[sneakypete]

The original 13 colonies created the U.S. and ratified the Union. But the other 37 states were created by the U.S. government.
How can a state created by the U.S. government be considered sovereign? And since no state can have more powers/rights than another state, how can any state be considered sovereign?

@goatprarie

So,in YOUR viewpoint,we are all slaves of the state,with the state being the Feral Goobermint in this case?

[Fishrrman]

Here's the graphic:


Those are pretty dis-jointed counties.
Got some ways to go before this can happen.