Moves to secede?

[Ridgerunner]

I have said this before, but I’ll say it again just for fun, not that it means much of anything.

The Missouri legislature passed articles of secession back at the the beginning of the Civil War and was formall accepted into the Confederacy. The Union had, however, already invaded, and took over most of the state. That being the case, the Union never acknowledged that Missouri had seceded.

Therefore, when the government required, after the war, that the seceding states’ legislatures pass resolutions of reunion, Missouri was not required to do it. Therefore, one can make an argument that Missouri is the only Confederate state left.

Kentucky might also have an argument for it, but I don’t know its history well enough to say.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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.

It may be true that the Founding Father argument doesn’t carry weight anymore, just as the Catholic Church’s arguments carry no weight in regards to legal decisions pertaining to marriage and abortion. However, the truth is the truth, and ignoring the truth always has severe consequences. The Founding Fathers thought processes and the laws implemented therefrom are based on nearly 2,000 years of history. The federal government has slowly been ignoring them and moving away from them. And we are now suffering from the consequences of doing so.

FWIW, Marbury v Madison was a power grab by one branch of government. All that needs to be done to get rid of it is another branch of government do the same thing. It often isn’t done, but we’ve had examples of the Executive Office refused to enforce laws and Congress passes Constitutional Amendments to slap down other branches of government. I remember reading Jackson did just that with one Supreme Court decision, and more recently Obama did that with DOMA.

 

[Fairwinds]

It may be true that the Founding Father argument doesn’t carry weight anymore, just as the Catholic Church’s arguments carry no weight in regards to legal decisions pertaining to marriage and abortion. However, the truth is the truth, and ignoring the truth always has severe consequences. The Founding Fathers thought processes and the laws implemented therefrom are based on nearly 2,000 years of history. The federal government has slowly been ignoring them and moving away from them. And we are now suffering from the consequences of doing so.

FWIW, Marbury v Madison was a power grab by one branch of government. All that needs to be done to get rid of it is another branch of government do the same thing. It often isn’t done, but we’ve had examples of the Executive Office refused to enforce laws and Congress passes Constitutional Amendments to slap down other branches of government. I remember reading Jackson did just that with one Supreme Court decision, and more recently Obama did that with DOMA.

founding father arguments are important in settling unsettled constitutional issues. disputes over judicial review have long been put to bed and all three branches of government accept it as the norm. its 200 years old. its not going anywhere. it would take a constitutional amendment to do away with it.

you are correct, the CCC carries no direct weight in resolving constitutional issues. and rightly so. I don’t want the CCC or the 39 Articles or lutheran-style confessions or the orange-catholic bible cited in civil or criminal courts.

 

[WhatMeWorry]

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.

Never say never.

I never thought I’d see the Soviet Union dissolve in my lifetime, so…anything is possible.

I think it’s inevitable that the United States will fall apart eventually. Whether or not I live to see it is up to God.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

the legal underpinnings of the invalidity of secession statutes is found in Texas vs White.

It should also be noted that one of decisions in this case didn’t decide that secession was valid, but rather that unilateral secession was invalid.

 

[CrispSnowflake]

No, just during the United States Civil war.

 

[Fairwinds]

It should also be noted that one of decisions in this case didn’t decide that secession was valid, but rather that unilateral secession was invalid.

interesting point, whether the union could voluntarily dissolve or kick out some state.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

interesting point, whether the union could voluntarily dissolve or kick out some state.

As usual, the federal government will simply make up the rules as they go along.

 

[Fairwinds]

As usual, the federal government will simply make up the rules as they go along.

I’m not certain what rules you’re talking about here.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m not certain what rules you’re talking about here.

They made up the “rules” about secession in the first place, and it follows that they can make up the “rules” about under which circumstances a state can leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

 

[Fairwinds]

They made up the “rules” about secession in the first place, and it follows that they can make up the “rules” about under which circumstances a state can leave voluntarily or involuntarily.

the confederacy made up the rules about secession. the war and Texas v. White proved it wrong.

the war is over. put away the rebel yells.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

the confederacy made up the rules about secession. the war and Texas v. White proved it wrong.

the war is over. put away the rebel yells.

The war means nothing; it just means the strongest wins. Hey, I a big martial artist that can beat up people in a dramatic and assertive fashion; it doesn’t mean I’m right.

As far as Texas v White, the Supreme Court simply made up the rules regarding secession; the rules are not in the Constitution, and certainly not based on the majority opinion of the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, read up on the reason why some of the Amendments were passed in that era; Congress was slapping back at the Supreme Court.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If somehow the world became absolutely peaceful and disarmed, the U.S. probably would break up. A lot of nations would.

 

[Fairwinds]

The war means nothing; it just means the strongest wins. Hey, I a big martial artist that can beat up people in a dramatic and assertive fashion; it doesn’t mean I’m right.

it also means you might be shot by an elderly woman with a big, dramatic and assertive pistol. but that’s as irrelevant as comparing martial arts to the USSC.

As far as Texas v White, the Supreme Court simply made up the rules regarding secession; the rules are not in the Constitution, and certainly not based on the majority opinion of the Founding Fathers. Furthermore, read up on the reason why some of the Amendments were passed in that era; Congress was slapping back at the Supreme Court.

there’s really no response to this. you don’t like the USSC analysis of secession statutes in *Texas v White *so everything that you don’t like is “made up” and “not in the Constitution” and hated by the founding dads. these arguments are tailor-made for arguing on the internets where there’s no consequence of any kind to holding losing positions, but they don’t work in real life where that kind of claim is laughed at in court (and we do laugh at them in court) and can be very expensive to whoever is relying on it.

no matter what you’d prefer, but you’ve got to live with things are they are. like it or not. so to that extent, complaining won’t do you any good.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

no matter what you’d prefer, but you’ve got to live with things are they are. like it or not. so to that extent, complaining won’t do you any good.

I assume you now think gay marriage is A-OK? Abortion too? Maybe the Church should just change Her position. After all, they’re settled legal issues so complaining won’t do you any good.

Furthermore, I’m not complaining. I’m recognizing reality for what it is. It’s important to recognize that made-up decisions, with no Constitutional basis, can be created, as well as dismissed, on a whim. It’s one of the reasons why abortion advocates have apoplexy every time a Supreme Court vacancy comes up.

 

[Fairwinds]

I assume you now think gay marriage is A-OK? Abortion too? Maybe the Church should just change Her position. After all, they’re settled legal issues so complaining won’t do you any good.

I don’t respond to off topic argumentative questions or assertions without any basis in fact.

Furthermore, I’m not complaining. I’m recognizing reality for what it is. It’s important to recognize that made-up decisions, with no Constitutional basis, can be created, as well as dismissed, on a whim. It’s one of the reasons why abortion advocates have apoplexy every time a Supreme Court vacancy comes up.

you got schooled, padawan. better for you if, instead of ipse dixit assertions, you learned why and become a better advocate.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I don’t respond to off topic argumentative questions or assertions without any basis in fact.

The consequences of one’s own logic is a difficult thing to face.

you got schooled, padawan. better for you if, instead of ipse dixit assertions, you learned why and become a better advocate.

There were some references throughout my posts that you were not aware of. They come from various volumes of Supreme Court history that I have right here. I like to add such references throughout my posts in order to see the level of knowledge of the person that is “teaching me,” Pa Si Tai.

 

[Fairwinds]

The consequences of one’s own logic is a difficult thing to face.

make an new thread for an off topic post

There were some references throughout my posts that you were not aware of. They come from various volumes of Supreme Court history that I have right here. I like to add such references throughout my posts in order to see the level of knowledge of the person that is “teaching me,” Pa Si Tai.

there’s nothing you posted that I wasn’t aware of. and now you’ve heard about Texas v. White.

ProTip: remember this term: legislative history. its your friend.

 

[Cojuanco]

Look, you know what secession and civil war (because that’s what would happen as a result of secession, given Unionist populations in every state) bring? See the news on Syria, where both sides shoot at old men, women and children? That’s what happens. Neighbors shooting neighbors, brothers shooting brothers.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

there’s nothing you posted that I wasn’t aware of.

I’m not sure what amendments you’re referring to, we might be talking past each other here.

Then name the Amendment.