# Calexit: Is it Legal?



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

A minute ago, I saw an article posted on Drudge. The article was concerning Calexit organizers circulating a petition to get the secession movement put on the 2018 agenda:
Calexit proponents can begin collecting voter signatures for 2018 ballot | The Sacramento Bee

This caused me to think about the notion of a state pursuing secession, how the colonies ceded from England and how the South attempted to do the same but failed.

First, it should be considered how the colonies broke from the Crown:
The Declaration of Independence: Full text

We broke from England after we made clear our grievances, how they were long tolerated and redress was never given by the Crown. We made it clear that, due to the continued oppression by the Crown and that this gave us Divine right to ruling, and we presented the document to not only the Crown but to the world as legitimate reason to break away from the Crown. The colonies won, and the united states of America was born

Fast forward to the 1860's U.S. The South was not long in suffering, presented no documentation to the world, and did not allow the system to properly run its course. The South lost, and our nation has never been the same.

Today, some in California believe they have cause to leave the union. What do you think? Do they have just cause, or is this simply rebellion?
_
I'm not looking for rhetorical argument, but a look at it from a historical and shade tree legal perspective._

Any thoughts?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

All I've really got is rhetorical.
In both examples you gave, the side that left still had to fight their former nation to retain their separation.
The Revolutionary War was close to being a loss for the colonies, but the few overcame the many. Many would argue it was by luck, and shear force of will.
The Civil War was a different story.
Document or no document, short or long timeframes, when a group of free men decide to leave another group, it is their prerogative.
Not always wise. Not always "legal". Rarely ever without bloodshed.
We can call it "divine right", we can call it "true liberty", we can call it whatever, but the fact of the matter is, no man should be slave to another. Not by force, not by law, and not by the fictional notion of "sovereignty".

Britain leaving the EU could almost be seen as secession. They did so by vote. If I understand, that was always an option for any countries joining, so the legal issue was already settled.
If a sufficient number in California seek the same, I think a vote is the perfect 1st step to making their will known.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

It simply is not legal. The question was settled in the 1869 SCOTUS case "Texas vs. White, 74 U.S. 700". The synopsys is that "The Union" is eternal, and once a state elected entered into "The Union" it cannot leave of its own accord. The only ways out are through an act of congress agreeing to it, or by a successful armed rebellion.

While we may or may not agree with the ruling, it does currently have the force of law. So to answer the question, "No, it's not legal."

They would have to petition Congress for release, and congress would have to vote on it. Which would NEVER happen.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

There is no legal course for their movement.

What are their legitimate grievances? 

It will not happen regardless of any vote.

There are legal precedents to keep the state in line.

A lot of that activity is underground to return it to Mexico.

National security will override any BS secession attempt.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Not to mention there's the issue of Federal Property. Like it or not, there is a LOT of Federal property in California. Marine and Naval bases, etc. If California were to somehow succeed, what becomes of those?

From a reality standpoint, the US NEEDS the port/harbor facilities in California for our Asian trade and so much more. Plus, all the food produced there, both vegetable and animal. These are just two of the many reasons I say that they would never be allowed to leave. We don't need the idiot people that live there (they are replaceable if need be), but we do need the physical.

Just my $0.02 worth.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Let them go them blockade the place and demand terms. Not going to happen.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Succession was taught as a legal constitutional remedy at West Point in the early 1800s. When actually exercised by the southern states the Northern states kept them in the perpetual union by force. The Articles of confederation were supposed to be perpetual also but each state had to succeed to form a government with the present constitution. Legal scholars are usually big on precedent.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Shut off the water they been stealing and see how they feel.


----------



## AnotherSOFSurvivor (Sep 7, 2016)

Well if this ever succeeds we can invade them and put them to the sword

sent from a paper cup and string via quantum wierdness


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

AnotherSOFSurvivor said:


> Well if this ever succeeds we can invade them and put them to the sword
> 
> sent from a paper cup and string via quantum wierdness


Funny you say that; I took that position in a discussion at work, yesterday.
"Let'em go, and then, invade and conquer.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Egyas said:


> Not to mention there's the issue of Federal Property. Like it or not, there is a LOT of Federal property in California. Marine and Naval bases, etc. If California were to somehow succeed, what becomes of those?
> 
> From a reality standpoint, the US NEEDS the port/harbor facilities in California for our Asian trade and so much more. Plus, all the food produced there, both vegetable and animal. These are just two of the many reasons I say that they would never be allowed to leave. We don't need the idiot people that live there (they are replaceable if need be), but we do need the physical.
> 
> Just my $0.02 worth.


I will start by saying that the U.S. govt does not own anything, including land. The People own everything that is federal. With that said, the story line in the book "Seccession" by Joe Nobody is about Texas Succeeding. In that book, all federal property in Tx went to Tx. In addition to that, Tx got a percentage of all Fed military assets equivalent to the Federal Taxes that TX paid. In the story, Tx were also responsible for paying their "share" of the Federal debt as well.
If we had a SHTF event, you would likely have states going their own way.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

More snowflake dribble and that's all. If it were that easy Texas would have been successful a long time ago. There have been active and ongoing attempts by several well intended organizations for decades. TNM - Texas Independence


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

A Watchman said:


> More snowflake dribble and that's all. If it were that easy Texas would have been successful a long time ago. There have been active and ongoing attempts by several well intended organizations for decades. TNM - Texas Independence


If Texas ever separates, I'm buying land there :vs_love:


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

just more stupid snowflake ranting - they are shaking from Trump's threat of cutting Fed $$$$$ - yeh, no handouts going forward - get real ....


----------



## Oddcaliber (Feb 17, 2014)

They won't last 6 months without the rest of this country. Let the snowflakes whine a while.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The will come up short when the invasion starts. Wave all the guns on this side.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

I remember Quebec wanted to leave Canada and even had a referendum.. which failed because Natives wanted to stay in Canada. Quebec is a welfare province, completely ruined their economy because of their idiotic language disputes, all the major banks moved to Toronto. Pay your share of national debt and get the F out but they can't afford it, they actually expected to continue receive movey from Ottawa after separation!! haha The French are nuts.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

If CA manages to secede I will be sleeping on @Denton's couch until I get settled. Proud American here!

Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


----------



## agmccall (Jan 26, 2017)

I guess there is one more wall we will have to build

al


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

TG said:


> I remember Quebec wanted to leave Canada and even had a referendum.. which failed because Natives wanted to stay in Canada. Quebec is a welfare province, completely ruined their economy because of their idiotic language disputes, all the major banks moved to Toronto. Pay your share of national debt and get the F out but they can't afford it, they actually expected to continue receive movey from Ottawa after separation!! haha The French are nuts.


 You understand Thank you


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

How do we go about paving the way for these dingbats?

They can have California, . . . 

We'll keep all our bases, . . . plus a 30 mile wide, . . . arid, . . . scorched earth buffer zone around each, . . . and a 10 mile wide scorched earth zone on each side of I-8, I-10, and I-80, . . . with tentacles from each to our bases.

We'll keep the water.

There will be no, . . . nada, . . . nein, . . . federal US dollars flowing into California for any reason whatsoever.

US citizenship for all will be cancelled, . . . including all social security and pension checks. Those wishing to avoid this will have 90 days to relocate inside the US border.

Those threats alone will stop the idiocy, . . . even though I wish they would do it. It would be a boon to our national economy not to have to support them.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

A Watchman said:


> More snowflake dribble and that's all. If it were that easy Texas would have been successful a long time ago. There have been active and ongoing attempts by several well intended organizations for decades. TNM - Texas Independence


Yes, but if Texas did manage to secede we would do well and prosper.:vs_cool: Snowflake socialist California??? Not so much. They would be ripe for conquest within a year.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Egyas said:


> It simply is not legal. The question was settled in the 1869 SCOTUS case "Texas vs. White, 74 U.S. 700". The synopsys is that "The Union" is eternal, and once a state elected entered into "The Union" it cannot leave of its own accord. The only ways out are through an act of congress agreeing to it, or by a successful armed rebellion.
> 
> While we may or may not agree with the ruling, it does currently have the force of law. So to answer the question, "No, it's not legal."
> 
> They would have to petition Congress for release, and congress would have to vote on it. Which would NEVER happen.


Everyone assumes that Texas vs White was about secession. It was not. It was about money. Here is a good study on the issue.

Articles: On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White

So yes, CA does have the right to secede. Will they make it on their own? Not a snowballs chance in hell.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I think I've figured out California's plan. They secede, The rest of the states invade CA. The 49 
states win over CA, and then the rest of the country rebuilds CA like we always do.


----------



## SGT E (Feb 25, 2015)

A 1000 pounder from a drone up Jerry Brown's Arse and he probably wouldn't notice!

Let em go...drop the bridges...cut the power lines and cut the water....freeze all interests in the US...build a wall and ignore the assholes! Boycott Hollyweird and ban all movies.....their produce is crap...Florida Georgia and South Carolina is ten times better.

Let em back in when they kiss every arse in the USA....Every one that voted for exit!...till then...drones and starvation.....There's a drought a coming! (There always is!)


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

They'll demand foreign aid :vs_laugh: :vs_laugh: :vs_laugh:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

TG said:


> They'll demand foreign aid :vs_laugh: :vs_laugh: :vs_laugh:


I'm sure Mexico will help. :vs_closedeyes:


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

It will be the shortest rebellion in history. Liberal Californians rise up in arms against their countrymen. Many sympathetic liberals from throughout the US will join their ranks. They will immediately be swept aside by vastly superior troops. Some will flee to the hills the rest will flee to Mexico. Mexico will build and pay for the wall to keep liberals and Hippies out of their country. Trump is a genius!


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

We need California!!!


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mish said:


> We need California!!!


For what?????


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

inceptor said:


> For what?????


Sexy people!! lol


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Mish said:


> Sexy people!! lol


That's why we have Texas :tango_face_grin:


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

That's Texas sexy!! LOL


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

inceptor said:


> That's why we have Texas :tango_face_grin:


Is Texas full of hot men with baritone voices?


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

I wouldn't suggest going to Texas!!!!


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

TG said:


> Is Texas full of hot men with baritone voices?


Not being from California, I don't pay much attention to that.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

haha :vs_laugh:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Sasquatch said:


> If CA manages to secede I will be sleeping on @Denton's couch until I get settled. Proud American here!
> 
> Sent from a Galaxy S5 far far away.


I have extra weapons for you, too.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Mish said:


> Sexy people!! lol


Thank you Mish! I never knew you thought I was sexy. You must have a thing for hair.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

California ain't going anywhere. The Feds get too much tax revenue from us to let us go. The point will be moot once Trump starts putting the strangle hold on Sanctuary cities and these idiot politicians start seeing some jail time for breaking the law and/or aiding and abiding illegals.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Egyas said:


> It simply is not legal. The question was settled in the 1869 SCOTUS case "Texas vs. White, 74 U.S. 700". The synopsys is that "The Union" is eternal, and once a state elected entered into "The Union" it cannot leave of its own accord. The only ways out are through an act of congress agreeing to it, or by a successful armed rebellion.
> 
> While we may or may not agree with the ruling, it does currently have the force of law. So to answer the question, "No, it's not legal."
> 
> They would have to petition Congress for release, and congress would have to vote on it. Which would NEVER happen.


It absolutely IS legal for states to succeed. Long before Mr Lincoln decided to murder 600,000 Americans over the idea, Connecticut threatened to succeed and it was widely understood that it was their right t do so. That was a political fight and was resolved peacefully. But if you honestly believe the original States would have ratified a Constitution that would bind them forever to a central government they have no control over if they wanted to leave, you have NO understanding of history.

The Lincoln that you all revere so much was the original progressive that opened the door for your subjugation by the federal government! That asshat was worse than Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson and obama COMBINED!!!


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Thanks guys. Thanks so much getting Inor on one of his anti-Lincoln tirades.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Inor said:


> It absolutely IS legal for states to succeed. Long before Mr Lincoln decided to murder 600,000 Americans over the idea, Connecticut threatened to succeed and it was widely understood that it was their right t do so. That was a political fight and was resolved peacefully. But if you honestly believe the original States would have ratified a Constitution that would bind them forever to a central government they have no control over if they wanted to leave, you have NO understanding of history.


No, this Union would not have been formed if the founding fathers thought they were being locked into a relationship they could never get out of. No rational person would. Over the years people cite Texas vs White as stating SCOTUS ruled that a state could not secede. The suit was over money, bonds to be exact. And the Chief Justice, Salmon Chase (a previous Lincoln cabinet member) ruled that the articles of Confederation meant that you could not secede. But the articles of Confederation did not state that. In fact neither The articles of Confederation nor the Constitution address this issue. In the written opinion Justice Chase stated secession was not allowed by either document but offered no proof or documentation to back up his opinion.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

My suggestion is the Federal Government consider the proponents seditious criminals and start locking them up. Is it legal - was it legal for the South to leave the United States in the 1800's no; it was stopped. So stop this CRAP now.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

stowlin said:


> My suggestion is the Federal Government consider the proponents seditious criminals and start locking them up. Is it legal - was it legal for the South to leave the United States in the 1800's no; it was stopped. So stop this CRAP now.


Can you cite how it's illegal? BTW the South leaving the Union was also financial. Lincoln made it about slavery but the initial reason was money.

ETA: For what it's worth, I believe that if CA did secede they would implode. The state spends more money than it brings in through taxes.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

It fits with the original version of sedition but that was a law allowed to expire. They just have to renew it.
------from wiki------
In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress (though not the office of the Vice-President, then occupied by Adams' political opponent Thomas Jefferson). This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after Jefferson's election to the Presidency.[citation needed]



inceptor said:


> Can you cite how it's illegal? BTW the South leaving the Union was also financial. Lincoln made it about slavery but the initial reason was money.
> 
> ETA: For what it's worth, I believe that if CA did secede they would implode. The state spends more money than it brings in through taxes.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

stowlin said:


> It fits with the original version of sedition but that was a law allowed to expire. They just have to renew it.
> ------from wiki------
> In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States" or writing or publishing "false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the President or the U.S. Congress (though not the office of the Vice-President, then occupied by Adams' political opponent Thomas Jefferson). This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after Jefferson's election to the Presidency.[citation needed]


1. That sounds like it was directed to a person or a group of people, not a state. There is no law on the books about secession. We do have libel laws on record for parts of that.
2. It was allowed to expire.


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

As I noted it would have to be renewed. I didn't say charge the state I wanted / tried to imply charge "those" meaning the proponents of secession or those promoting the calexit efforts. 

How do you separate social security? 
How would you divide military assets? 
What about federal property? 
What about federal employees and their benefits/ retirements if assumed / taken in by the new country? 

People just get stupid and don't think anything through. Their efforts are frivolous but worse they divide the nation. That divide is getting dangerous and should be stopped.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

stowlin said:


> As I noted it would have to be renewed. I didn't say charge the state I wanted / tried to imply charge "those" meaning the proponents of secession or those promoting the calexit efforts.
> 
> How do you separate social security?
> How would you divide military assets?
> ...


For every action there are consequences. I am neither for or against calexit. If these people don't think things through, that's their problem. You can't regulate stupidity. Any state that wants/decides to secede will have to deal with those issues without a doubt.

In case you haven't noticed, this country has been divided for quite a while now. AND it's only getting worse. You said "That divide is getting dangerous and should be stopped." How would you stop it?


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

You can stop it using the same tools the left uses to divide it. Make it politically incorrect to be stupid. Trump has accomplished this with the main stream media and now we need to with idiots that propel things like calexit.



inceptor said:


> For every action there are consequences. I am neither for or against calexit. If these people don't think things through, that's their problem. You can't regulate stupidity. Any state that wants/decides to secede will have to deal with those issues without a doubt.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed, this country has been divided for quite a while now. AND it's only getting worse. You said "That divide is getting dangerous and should be stopped." How would you stop it?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

stowlin said:


> You can stop it using the same tools the left uses to divide it. Make it politically incorrect to be stupid. Trump has accomplished this with the main stream media and now we need to with idiots that propel things like calexit.


But being politically correct is what caused this problem. Communist ideology started in the 1950's and slowly but steadily built it's base. Saul Alinsky was prominent in starting this movement. He even mentored Hillary. He helped build that base and wrote guides on how and what to do. That base is now in charge and has been for quite a number of years. Kids started being indoctrinated years ago by these same people and it continues. You aren't going to stop it by declaring political correctness is stupid. We've tried that. Now the stupid are getting violent.

Take a look at history. When Reagan took office they started protesting and rioting. When Bush was elected they did it again only more so. Now that Trump has been elected the protesting and rioting has gotten exponentially worse and more violent. The calls for revolution are growing stronger by the left everyday. The leftists now have even more power and are afraid of losing it.


----------



## Mosinator762x54r (Nov 4, 2015)

Take a look at the Gaspee Affair. A blip on the radar in the precursors to the Revolution, but an important blip.

Redresses denied turn into open rebellion.

Although during the American Revolution a large portion of it was economically driven (IMO) the crown was taking at will and not returning anything worthwhile to the colonies.

EDIT: "_ A wealthy Providence merchant called John Brown and other prominent citizens of the Rhode Island colony petitioned Deputy Governor Darius Sessions and Governor Joseph Wanton to investigate claims of piracy and theft on the part of the Gaspee and whether the Gaspee had the authority to act in this way._

https://www.landofthebrave.info/the-gaspee.htm



Denton said:


> I'm not looking for rhetorical argument, but a look at it from a historical and shade tree legal perspective.[/I]
> 
> Any thoughts?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

RedLion said:


> I will start by saying that the U.S. govt does not own anything, including land. The People own everything that is federal. With that said, the story line in the book "Seccession" by Joe Nobody is about Texas Succeeding. In that book, all federal property in Tx went to Tx. In addition to that, Tx got a percentage of all Fed military assets equivalent to the Federal Taxes that TX paid. In the story, Tx were also responsible for paying their "share" of the Federal debt as well.
> If we had a SHTF event, you would likely have states going their own way.


Lands that are "properly seated" federal territories belong to the federal government. This is in the constitution, and the constitution also outlines the reasons for them. 
Take Ft. Rucker as an example. It is situated in Alabama, but it is not within the state's jurisdiction. This would not change if Alabama left the union unless the U.S. came to an amicable agreement with the new country of Alabama. 
It would be immediate war if the government of Alabama were to attempt to enter Ft. Rucker or any of the other military installations or to attempt to block the U.S. government from having access to those installations.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

TG said:


> They'll demand foreign aid :vs_laugh: :vs_laugh: :vs_laugh:


And, they'd get it.
China would become the country of California's best friend. China would even be willing to assist California with military protection, I'm sure.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Inor said:


> It absolutely IS legal for states to succeed. Long before Mr Lincoln decided to murder 600,000 Americans over the idea, Connecticut threatened to succeed and it was widely understood that it was their right t do so. That was a political fight and was resolved peacefully. But if you honestly believe the original States would have ratified a Constitution that would bind them forever to a central government they have no control over if they wanted to leave, you have NO understanding of history.
> 
> The Lincoln that you all revere so much was the original progressive that opened the door for your subjugation by the federal government! That asshat was worse than Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson and obama COMBINED!!!


Some people think the Declaration of Independence is nothing but a manifesto on the same legal par as the Unibomber's, but they are wrong. It was a legal document that was presented to all the nations. 
The declaration made it clear that our right to secede was not of our own design but that of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. It was their natural right to break from the Crown.

"Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is a higher authority than that of any level of government. If it is a right endowed by God, no human government has the right to deprive a state or a man of that right. This being the case, were a state to conduct the separation properly, how could the U.S. government deprive the state of secession? I don't see how it could.

There is a difference between secession and rebellion, though.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Denton said:


> Some people think the Declaration of Independence is nothing but a manifesto on the same legal par as the Unibomber's, but they are wrong. It was a legal document that was presented to all the nations.
> The declaration made it clear that our right to secede was not of our own design but that of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. It was their natural right to break from the Crown.
> 
> "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is a higher authority than that of any level of government. If it is a right endowed by God, no human government has the right to deprive a state or a man of that right. This being the case, were a state to conduct the separation properly, how could the U.S. government deprive the state of secession? I don't see how it could.
> ...


The way things are going, secession is not something that we will have to consider. I think the country may end up breaking apart due to the level of division we now experience increasing. The biggest problem with that is few states are capable of being self sufficient. You will find countries like China, Russia and others competing to help and gain control. This is speculation on my part but plausible.

ETA: Yeah, that would be a rebellion fueled by the heightened levels of division.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

California would prove itself a bastion of fools, if it tried to secede; and they would get some very rough treatment, from the rest of us out here. I have read the Declaration of Independence, but I suspect, that not many Californians have. 
There would be a house cleaning done, and it would be utterly violent, if that is what is needed. But, it won't be needed; that pack of cupcakes would not know how to properly respond to force; so they would surrender, upon any use of it.
In summation, any declaration by them of secession, would be met with an invasion; and it would be the right thing to do.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Denton said:


> Funny you say that; I took that position in a discussion at work, yesterday.
> "Let'em go, and then, invade and conquer.


I love California. It is one of the most beautiful states. But half (or more) of California's citizens are batcrap crazy and the Greatest Republic EVER (The US of A) would be much better if the liberal retards from Caly were either return to Old Mejico or suck start a Mossberg 500.

Thanks!


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

The main reason I'm not against it is CA will have a chance to see how their liberal policies will affect them. But then, I figure libs will still blame all their problems on conservatives.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Well we could let them proceed, then go in and kill all the libtard basterds and illegals as seditionist.

That would get rid of most of the commywood schmucks and ********.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Inor said:


> It absolutely IS legal for states to succeed. Long before Mr Lincoln decided to murder 600,000 Americans over the idea, Connecticut threatened to succeed and it was widely understood that it was their right t do so. That was a political fight and was resolved peacefully. But if you honestly believe the original States would have ratified a Constitution that would bind them forever to a central government they have no control over if they wanted to leave, you have NO understanding of history.
> 
> The Lincoln that you all revere so much was the original progressive that opened the door for your subjugation by the federal government! That asshat was worse than Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson and obama COMBINED!!!


I agree with you on Lincoln in general. However, everything else you mention is irrelevant _from a legal perspective_. The SCOTUS ruling came after the events you mention, and thus supersedes them, for better or worse.

Not saying I agree with the ruling, or that I think it's a good ruling, just that it *is*. Like many rulings from the SCOTUS that I believe are just plain wrong, legally, ethically, and morally, it *is*. As such, we're stuck with it until we can get it undone.

For the record, my _personal_ opinion is that secession was something that the Founders believed may be used some day, and that the ruling was a poor one.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

inceptor said:


> No, this Union would not have been formed if the founding fathers thought they were being locked into a relationship they could never get out of. No rational person would. Over the years people cite Texas vs White as stating SCOTUS ruled that a state could not secede. The suit was over money, bonds to be exact. And the Chief Justice, Salmon Chase (a previous Lincoln cabinet member) ruled that the articles of Confederation meant that you could not secede. But the articles of Confederation did not state that. In fact neither The articles of Confederation nor the Constitution address this issue. In the written opinion Justice Chase stated secession was not allowed by either document but offered no proof or documentation to back up his opinion.


I never said that T vs. W was about succession. Just that the question was settled in that case. As the ruling stated...


> When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.


What the base of the case was about didn't really matter. The bond issue at the heart of the case lead doen this rabbit hole, and in ruling on the issue the SCOTUS clearly said that there was no legal path for Texas at the tie to leave the union. Per that ruling, the only way to leave now is "...through revolution or through consent of the States."

Whether we like the ruling or not, in our legal system it holds the force of law. Like United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and IMO other piss-poor rulings, we're stuck with them until another SCOTUS overturns them.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

inceptor said:


> No, this Union would not have been formed if the founding fathers thought they were being locked into a relationship they could never get out of. No rational person would.


On this point we agree completely. My readings over the years point me to believe that the Founders considered the Federal Government to be more of an agent acting on behalf of the several states, and to mediate disputes between them, regulate trade between them, maintain a standing army, etc.

I have never found anything that lead me to believe that the Founders thought such an arrangement would be perpetual and eternal.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Egyas said:


> For the record, my _personal_ opinion is that secession was something that the Founders believed may be used some day, and that the ruling was a poor one.


It sounds like you and I may be of the same mind except on the "legality" part.

I am obviously NOT a legal scholar. But I also do not think the Supreme Court is ultimate arbitrator in these matters. The Constitution is. In this particular instance, the Supremes ruled the States do not have the right to self-determination in regard to whether they remain part of the union. That ruling, by itself, violates the 10th Amendment because succession is not specifically mentioned in Constitution.

To accept any ruling because a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is so, means you are turning over your judgement to the majority of a group of unelected scholars. In other words, your understanding of the clearly written words in the Constitution, means nothing. I refuse to accept that. The Constitution was deliberately written in the language it was, specifically to be understood by common folks like me.


----------



## 7052 (Jul 1, 2014)

Inor said:


> It sounds like you and I may be of the same mind except on the "legality" part.
> 
> I am obviously NOT a legal scholar. But I also do not think the Supreme Court is ultimate arbitrator in these matters. The Constitution is. In this particular instance, the Supremes ruled the States do not have the right to self-determination in regard to whether they remain part of the union. That ruling, by itself, violates the 10th Amendment because succession is not specifically mentioned in Constitution.
> 
> To accept any ruling because a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is so, means you are turning over your judgement to the majority of a group of unelected scholars. In other words, your understanding of the clearly written words in the Constitution, means nothing. I refuse to accept that. The Constitution was deliberately written in the language it was, specifically to be understood by common folks like me.


You and I do indeed seem to be of the same mind. The reason I stress "legally" and "carries the force of law" is because while we may agree that the SCOTUS is not the "supreme authority" of what is constitutional and what isn't, somewhere along the line it simply decided that it was. For whatever reason, the country, by in large, and the government accepted that decision, and basically "made it so". As a result, we're stuck for now in a system that _*believes*_ their "word is law". That's why they can invent crap like the "inferred right to privacy" they used to justify Roe vs. Wade, or decide that a law forcing a private person to buy a commercial product is really a tax, thus justifying the Federal government in forcing people to buy health insurance as part of Obamacare.

It shouldn't shock anyone that when we put progressives on the SCOTUS for years, and outnumber the Constitutionalists, we get judicial activism and creep, and suddenly one branch of the government becomes the most powerful when it was never intended to be.

For the record, I do not believe that the SCOTUS should have the ultimate authority to decide these things. I believe that Congress should have the ability to override a poor SCOTUS ruling (maybe a veto-override like vote or something similar?). The Legislature was always intended to be the most powerful of the three branches. After all, even though we know that in our current system Congress seems to disdain the people, they are at least theoretically accountable to the people, and we can vote them out.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Egyas said:


> On this point we agree completely. My readings over the years point me to believe that the Founders considered the Federal Government to be more of an agent acting on behalf of the several states, and to mediate disputes between them, regulate trade between them, maintain a standing army, etc.
> 
> I have never found anything that lead me to believe that the Founders thought such an arrangement would be perpetual and eternal.


Maintain a navy, not a standing army. As a matter of fact, they placed a time limit on a standing army. They were fully aware of the fact that a standing army was a threat to freedom.

What if Obama had the chance to appoint a majority to the supreme court, and that court decided that the citizen had no right to keep and bear weapons. Let's say they went with Schumer's position that it means the national guard units can have weapons. Would you urn your weapons in for destruction?


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Sorry Sas , just let them go , one good earth quake and it's over anyway .


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

I just left that hell hole last year... I hope they do exit the union! That would make sure that another liberal never gets into the White House!!! without California's 57 Liberal votes, we could go back to how this nation was supposed to be. IM ALL FOR IT


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I wonder why? Is it to fund their exit or to get it push started?

SF sues Trump over sanctuary city executive order - by j_sabatini - The San Francisco Examiner


----------

