queencitybuckeye wrote:

gport_tennis wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances.

Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.

If the states have that power, the only place it could reside would be in the constitution. It isn't there.

There isn't any provision about speeding in the constitution does that mean that I can do it?

queencitybuckeye wrote:

gport_tennis wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances.

Are you saying that Vermont is not allowed to secede from the union? If so I dont believe that to be correct. From what I have read a state has the power if it chooses so to secede from the union.

If the states have that power, the only place it could reside would be in the constitution. It isn't there.

There is no enumerated power granting the federal government the authority to force a state to remain a part of the union. The states voluntarily ceded some of their power to form the union. But only if the federal government agreed to limit its power as defined to those enumerated in the constitution. If a state feels the contract governing the secession of some of their power is being violated, than they have the power to cede it back.

The 10th amendment states the following:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Since no power is delegated to the federal government to force a union, the power to remain a part of the union resides with the states.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it implore states that are in the union to remain in the union. It does however have the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, it looks like it is up to a state if they want to secede. As for Vermont, I'm sure they're not serious, but someone ought to get serious about it here soon.

Well, great minds think alike I suppose.

I Wear Pants wrote: There isn't any provision about speeding in the constitution does that mean that I can do it?

Nope, which means it is up to your state if they want to allow it. Do they?

Cleveland Buck wrote: Nowhere in the Constitution does it implore states that are in the union to remain in the union. It does however have the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, it looks like it is up to a state if they want to secede. As for Vermont, I'm sure they're not serious, but someone ought to get serious about it here soon.

They will get real serious when the federal government goes bankrupt.

Ok, hypothetical question:

What if the U.S. Government goes bankrupt or for some reason all the loans we have outstanding are called. The states, all of them, say the hell with it. They all go their own way, or band together in smaller groups and we have multiple nations. What is the collateral on these loans? What would we lose by the Federal Government going under? Would the individual states stand to lose anything?

icskins wrote: Ok, hypothetical question:

What if the U.S. Government goes bankrupt or for some reason all the loans we have outstanding are called. The states, all of them, say the hell with it. They all go their own way, or band together in smaller groups and we have multiple nations. What is the collateral on these loans? What would we lose by the Federal Government going under? Would the individual states stand to lose anything?

Well, I'm pretty sure the loans aren't secured by anything but the credit of the U.S., so those people and countries would get nothing. Of course, dollars would be worthless at that point as they backed by the 'full faith and credit of the United States'. You are looking at severe hyperinflation, stores only accepting gold or foreign currency if you want to buy food or anything. Foreign oil imports would just about stop as we would have no way of paying for them. The states that seceded would have to pay high prices for everything until they established a stable currency of their own. It would suck for everyone, but states that have some sense would be able to eventually pull out of it.

I hope they take Maine and Massachusetts with them.

That would be the key though. Alot of states have plenty of natural resources. Others have gold reserves, etc. There would be ways to avoid the hyperinflation for certain areas. That would then mean that other areas would have to band together and we would maybe have 10 smaller nations. Alaska would probably go alone. They can be pretty self sufficient and would have the money/resources to buy what they needed. I would look for some conflict on the southern border. That would be the best chance that Mexico has ever had for retaking some of the land they lost. I don't think they could do it, but if they were ever going to try, that would be the time. I half think that it would be worth it in the long run. The way things have been going, there is practically no state control left. Everything is done on the Federal level. That is not the way it was intended to work.

Okay, I have this debate with my AP US History kids every year, especially with all the way too proud of Texas idiots that tout their "right to secede" being in their constitution. What a bunch of fools.

For those that think seccession is legal, you need to understand that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not...it is the interpretation of at least 5 justices that matters...and noone else....

In the case of Texas v. White the Supreme Court ruled that no state had the right to secede. Even in the period of rebellion, Texas was considered a state. If you want more info on this case, you can find this landmark case at www.oyez.org and many other court websites.

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Basically, secession is illegal....good luck Vermont....and good luck to the slick haired governor of Texas Rick Perry...you are a joke for having even mentioned secession.

Would the Big 10 accept Vermont?

georgemc80,

Have you ever heard of the book "The South Was Right"? It was written in the mid 90's I believe. It laid the legal case for the southern states right to secede. Very detailed arguements. I am not saying the author was right or wrong, I was just curious if you had heard of it.

I remember somebody putting up a clip of Ron Paul who made a good argument about secession a while back...

georgemc80 wrote: Okay, I have this debate with my AP US History kids every year. For those that think seccession is legal, you need to understand that the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what is not...it is the interpretation of at least 5 justices that matters...and noone else....

In the case of Texas v. White the Supreme Court ruled that no state had the right to secede. Even in the period of rebellion, Texas was considered a state. If you want more info on this case, you can find this landmark case at www.oyez.org and many other court websites.

In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit and that individuals such as White had no claim to the bonds in question. The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.

Basically, secession is illegal....good luck Vermont....and good luck to the slick haired governor of Texas Rick Perry...you are a joke for having even mentioned secession.

So your liberty is in the hands of a majority of 5/9 judges. Question for you, has the Supreme Court ever been wrong?

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution to support that decision. Essentially they ruled secession illegal, "because we said so." What a joke. It's not the only stupid, illegal decision they have made though.

President Bernie Sanders - Socialist

Wonder whether anyone would be moving to Vermont? I think it's a good idea for them to secede. They can have their own little socialist paradise, a la Cuba.

MajorSpark and Cleveland Buck, I'm going to have to agree with you in this instance in regards to Constitutional Interpretation. Though I'm a believer in a federalist view on Article One, It's hard for me to find how blocking a state from succeeding would be a necessary and proper means of executing any of the enumerated powers; even if you were to accept the view that the taxing and spending clause grants a federal police power (which I know, MajorSpark rejects).

Also, it seems to me that the SCOTUS contradicted its ruling in Texas v. State with the holding in South Dakota v. Dole. That case held that the Feds could attach conditions on funds granted to states but that the Feds cannot coerce the states. It seems to me that disallowing succession would undoubtedly be coercing a sovereign state to remain in the union.

In fact, with the free trade agreements with countries that aren't even in our union and global military alliances like NATO; the arguments for unionizing with the other states might really not seem so strong these days. If the U.S. will freely trade with China and serve besides Canadians, why wouldn't they also do so with Vermont?

On secession and the Supreme Court: So we have the federal government - its branch the Supreme Court - saying no state can secede from the federal government. I'm shocked, not. The federal government ruling on secession is not the most unbiased ruling ever.

As there is no power in the Constitution to force a state to stay, the 10th amendment as others have pointed out reserves that power to the states. Remember, this is supposed to be a confederation of independent states yielding few powers to a federal government, not a powerful central government as is the case today.

queencitybuckeye wrote: Well, as there's no constitutional provision for a state to withdraw from the union, I guess that means war. I like our chances.

Texas has written in their state constitution that they can legally secede from the United States at a whim without repercussion. Hell....they already control more than half of our military and our oil supply. They might even elect Pinnochio from Crawford to run things for awhile.

I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.

majorspark wrote:So your liberty is in the hands of a majority of 5/9 judges. Question for you, has the Supreme Court ever been wrong?

When it comes to ruling what can and can't be done in this country....yes...and yes they have been wrong on many occasions...Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Miranda v. Arizona and Gore v. Florida..(j/k) But that doesn't change the legality of those decisions. It is the system we live with...it works.

bman618 wrote:this is supposed to be a confederation of independent states

We are not a confederation.....The Confederation did not work. It did not work because the states did not yield enough power to the Federal government. One of the underlying principles of the constitution is Federalism....

That means that the Federal government is the boss over the State government.

footwedge wrote:Texas has written in their state constitution that they can legally secede from the United States at a whim without repercussion. Hell....they already control more than half of our military and our oil supply. They might even elect Pinnochio from Crawford to run things for awhile.

This is the same inane argument I hear down here all the time....see above reference to Federalism....if a State constitution is in conflict with the Federal Government....Federal wins.

queencitybuckeye wrote: I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.

The question of whether the federal government would allow states to secede was answered in the 1860s, not the question of whether the Constitution would allow them to secede.

Cleveland Buck wrote: The question of whether the federal government would allow states to secede was answered in the 1860s, not the question of whether the Constitution would allow them to secede.

The difference is purely an academic exercise. As a practical matter, the issue is resolved.

queencitybuckeye wrote: I believe the question was answered beyond all question in the 1860s.

That's my thought, too. I seem to recall that some states already attempted secession, and that it generally didn't work out too well for them.