Moves to secede?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jonathan_hili
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
epan said:
Then you have no problem with the DOMA ruling. All that happened is that equal rights were affirmed in a state that recognizes gay marriage.

However, this is a legal question to be resolved now: what happens is someone marries in a state which allows gay marriage, and then they move to a state which does not recognize the marriage? Would the couple still be entitled to federal benefits?

This is the same problem that was encountered with mixed race marriages.

My guess is that the Prop 8 ruling will serve as the first federal ruling to overturn similar laws in other states, because it was found unconstitutional. But also, the issue I mentioned above may well be cause to also overturn the rest of DOMA, which allows states not to recognize marriages legal in other states, but only in the case that it is a gay marriage. On the face of it, this also violates equal protection and due process.

The writing is on the wall.
Click to expand...
Yup, you’re absolutely right.

It’s not a matter of individual states becoming Sodom. We all have.

May God preserve those of us who don’t consent as He preserved Lot.
 
markomalley said:
Yup, you’re absolutely right.

It’s not a matter of individual states becoming Sodom. We all have.

May God preserve those of us who don’t consent as He preserved Lot.
Click to expand...
We? Nope. Count me and all faithful Christians out. While we throw our TVs out the window and refuse to see new movies.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
We? Nope. Count me and all faithful Christians out. While we throw our TVs out the window and refuse to see new movies.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Interesting articles indeed… but as noted in one comment… 300,000 signatures is still less the one tenth of one percent of the population. Once you trip seven million then you’re on to something… I haven’t signed… yet…

Mentally and spiritually secede for sure… if you haven’t already…

Tune In to the Holy Spirit, Turn On to Jesus Christ and Drop Out of the culture of death.
 
migueltojose said:
Interesting articles indeed… but as noted in one comment… 300,000 signatures is still less the one tenth of one percent of the population. Once you trip seven million then you’re on to something… I haven’t signed… yet…

Mentally and spiritually secede for sure… if you haven’t already…

Tune In to the Holy Spirit, Turn On to Jesus Christ and Drop Out of the culture of death.
Click to expand...
Good point, and as an out-of-towner, I can’t speak much on US issues with any real knowledge, but 300,000 is actually not bad for an on-line petition. Petitions (especially if on-line) don’t necessarily have a very broad audience.

In Australia, one of our states, Western Australia, actually had a referendum in 1933 about seceding from the federal commonwealth. Surprisingly, an overwhelming majority (138,653 YES to 70,706 NO) voted for secession, however, it didn’t eventuate as the federal government didn’t approve. Personally, that’s a bit of a joke - I mean, which federal government is going to approve a state (and all its resources, tax money, etc.) leaving it!
 
jonathan_hili said:
Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the right place for the post, but as a non-American I’m curious as to whether any states have recently given secession from the federation any serious consideration, with all the bullying that’s coming from Washington?

God bless.
Click to expand...
states don’t have a legal right to do that. so, no.
 
The_Wizard said:
Cojuanco,

The question of whether or not secession is legal has never been tested in a court of law. The constitution does not address the matter of states wanting out of the union. The South was FORCED back into the union. We don’t really know what would have happen if South Carolina did not fire on Fort Sumter.
Click to expand...
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) held that there is no constitutional right to secede and that ordinances of secession were null.

the civil war, obviously, settled the question in any real sense.

but, some people are still fighting the civil war in their minds.
 
Here in the UK there has long been separatist movements, in their cases largely based on long historical cultural and language differences and lengthy timelines of border incursions, conquest and repression.

Ironically, given the rumblings from the Scottish Nationalists, the first king that reigned over a united England and Scotland was a Scot. - James the 6th of Scotland AND James 1st of England!
 
I would have thought that it was obvious that states would, under federal law and a federal constitution, not be legally allowed to secede, since it obviously violates the federation. But isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t a state desiring to secede basically saying, “I’ve had enough of this federation”?
 
jonathan_hili said:
I would have thought that it was obvious that states would, under federal law and a federal constitution, not be legally allowed to secede, since it obviously violates the federation. But isn’t that the whole point? Isn’t a state desiring to secede basically saying, “I’ve had enough of this federation”?
Click to expand...
one could legally withdraw from a partnership that the partner voluntarily entered into. the states of the confederacy took a similar position with regards to the USofA. there’s no question today of the illegality of secession, but in 1860 it was an open question.
 
pnewton said:
The federal government is strong enough to prevent secession.
Click to expand...
The same thing could be said about the Soviet Union. In actuality, the federal government didn’t prevent secession, but rather the stronger northern half of the country prevented the weaker southern half of the country from seceding.

Ultimately, no government can defend itself against it’s people if the people decide they’ve had enough. All empires eventually fall.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
The same thing could be said about the Soviet Union. In actuality, the federal government didn’t prevent secession, but rather the stronger northern half of the country prevented the weaker southern half of the country from seceding.

Ultimately, no government can defend itself against it’s people if the people decide they’ve had enough. All empires eventually fall.
Click to expand...
What I find hypocritical is how the United States has asserted the right to independence to foreign states but refuses the same right to the states here at home. There really is nothing magical about the number 50 or the federal government. Since we have had such an amoral, overbearing, humanistic, liberal, modern set of laws shoved down the throat of the states in the middle of the country, it is becoming more clear that a cultural difference exists sufficient to justify the same type of peaceful division that we have done abroad.
 
pnewton said:
What I find hypocritical is how the United States has asserted the right to independence to foreign states but refuses the same right to the states here at home. There really is nothing magical about the number 50 or the federal government. Since we have had such an amoral, overbearing, humanistic, liberal, modern set of laws shoved down the throat of the states in the middle of the country, it is becoming more clear that a cultural difference exists sufficient to justify the same type of peaceful division that we have done abroad.
Click to expand...
Something will give in the future; I just don’t know how it will manifest itself. The ultimate cause will be economic failure brought on by the federal government, which obviously has it roots in mortality.
 
pnewton said:
What I find hypocritical is how the United States has asserted the right to independence to foreign states but refuses the same right to the states here at home. There really is nothing magical about the number 50 or the federal government. Since we have had such an amoral, overbearing, humanistic, liberal, modern set of laws shoved down the throat of the states in the middle of the country, it is becoming more clear that a cultural difference exists sufficient to justify the same type of peaceful division that we have done abroad.
Click to expand...
each state voted for statehood. there’s no legal way out of it, according to the terms of the union they joined.

the fed didn’t deny them anything, they voluntarily assumed the bond of union.

I wish it were my birthday every day. but its not, so I don’t whine about it.
 
Fairwinds said:
each state voted for statehood. there’s no legal way out of it, according to the terms of the union they joined.
Click to expand...
Secession was not part of those terms. The federal government decided to make that states could not secede by fiat.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Secession was not part of those terms. The federal government decided to make that states could not secede by fiat.
Click to expand...
the matter was practically settled by the civil war, the former confederate states accepted that, even if some people are still fighting the war in their minds today.

the legal underpinnings of the invalidity of secession statutes is found in Texas vs White. there’s an enormous fantasy world for some people who do not accept the doctrine of judicial review, but, you know, there is also a fantasy world for flying saucer abductees.
 
Fairwinds said:
each state voted for statehood. there’s no legal way out of it, according to the terms of the union they joined.

the fed didn’t deny them anything, they voluntarily assumed the bond of union.

I wish it were my birthday every day. but its not, so I don’t whine about it.
Click to expand...
(off topic) it would be nice if the government took the same position toward divorce.
 
Fairwinds said:
the matter was practically settled by the civil war, the former confederate states accepted that, even if some people are still fighting the war in their minds today.

the legal underpinnings of the invalidity of secession statutes is found in Texas vs White. there’s an enormous fantasy world for some people who do not accept the doctrine of judicial review, but, you know, there is also a fantasy world for flying saucer abductees.
Click to expand...
Anyone familiar with American History knows that the time of that case was very interesting in history. Several Constitutional Amendments were passed to slap down a rogue Supreme Court. So while legally it may be true because a Court decided it is true does not mean the Founding Fathers set it up that way. That’s fact is true whether we are discussing state secession or abortion. Abortion was declared legal by the courts, but it certainly didn’t have anything to do with the founding of this country or the intent of the Constitution.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Anyone familiar with American History knows that the time of that case was very interesting in history. Several Constitutional Amendments were passed to slap down a rogue Supreme Court. So while legally it may be true because a Court decided it is true does not mean the Founding Fathers set it up that way. That’s fact is true whether we are discussing state secession or abortion. Abortion was declared legal by the courts, but it certainly didn’t have anything to do with the founding of this country or the intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
it doesn’t matter, after over two centuries of constitutional law evolving through judicial review, that a few commentators today contend that it is not good law or practice. it is, and it has been since 1803. Marbury v Madison and judicial review (and there are ample historical precedents for the doctrine and the doctrine itself is considered an implied power) is how the game is played. you don’t have to like it, but you should understand that those kind of “founding father” arguments don’t carry weight on this issue anymore.

I’m not sure what amendments you’re referring to, we might be talking past each other here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top