Secession

[Pericles]

I find William Rawle (Washington's forst choice for Attorney General) in his work, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829), to be a good source for what the founders thought on many questions;

As to secession:

"The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.

The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable."

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions of the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case--as in the case of an unconditional secession,--the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power."

[bluebb]

That's not the Constitution but a petition of grievances - the Constitution was not produced for another 11 years.

You are correct it is not the Constitution but it is the document that lays out the God given right of every human being to determine their own fate. Without the Declaration of Independence (or the list o' grievances as you call it) we would have no Constitution. While I view this current secession business as silly, I do not view the idea of secession as something that could not be done without good reason.

If people find the idea of the citizens of Los Angeles and San Francisco (California), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Chicago, (Illinois) Miami (Florida) and Fairfax County (Virginia) with 146 electoral votes deciding the vote abhorrent to them, then it is their right to secede.

And if you don’t agree with me then you are a communist of the rankest ilk.

Blue

[Pete]

Well, La Raza thinks CA should be broken off from the US - along with a few other states.

[mark46th]

Yup Then we can all smoke dope and trip into Aztlan... Viva la Raza!

[Richard]

And if you don’t agree with me then you are a communist of the rankest ilk.

Spasibo, Kamerad.

Richard

[dollarbill]

Just checked out this site, petitions.whitehouse.gov Unreal the petitions that have been filed. Close to half of the states have petitions wanting a "peaceful secession" from the US. Doesn't say who filed petitions. The number of people that have electronically signed the petitions vs the amount needed by Dec. 31, just don't see it going anywhere. However, the amount need to have pot legalized across the country is more than enough. Maybe people are thinking if they stay stoned, they want remember the upcoming four years.

[Richard]

And so it goes...

Richard

[BryanK]

You got it all wrong Richard, they're democrats advertising for Kerry. They just brought the "E" instead of the "F".

[MR2]

Originally Posted by BryanK

You got it all wrong Richard, they're democrats advertising for Kerry. They just brought the "E" instead of the "F".

Well played...

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Richard

I think there is, but it is 'implicit' in that either Congress or the collective majority will of the States can amend the Constitution to allow such an action - although I don't see it happening at any point in the near future.

I agree. I also don't think that secession is a viable option, although I completely agree with sentiment. There is an alternative and that will require patience. First, we need to understand the opposition, his strengths, weakness, strategy, weapons, numbers, etc. A good read is the Curley effect [see JSMosby "Looters War Against Wealth" in the General Discussion Forum]. This is the new reality and permanent political power for the opposition is at hand. The next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton - 2 terms The opposition's numbers are 53% (est) of the electorate. Their principle weapon is the tax code. Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support). The major weakness lies in the fatal flaw of their goal. Every socialist society has imploded! Unfortunately, we need to wait until this happens - timing is everything.

So what do we do. First, be patient. In the meantime become organized, conduct our own Psyops, and develop a plan for the end-game. As to the end-game - a Constitutional Convention. Risky? I know, but consider the alternatives. The tactic - Article V of the US Constitution. At the latest count I think there are 32 states behind the petition in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. This is 2 short of the needed 2/3 for a Constitutional Convention. If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.

None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

. I agree. I also don't think that secession is a viable option, although I completely agree with sentiment. There is an alternative and that will require patience. First, we need to understand the opposition, his strengths, weakness, strategy, weapons, numbers, etc. A good read is the Curley effect [see JSMosby "Looters War Against Wealth" in the General Discussion Forum]. This is the new reality and permanent political power for the opposition is at hand. The next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton - 2 terms The opposition's numbers are 53% (est) of the electorate. Their principle weapon is the tax code. Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support). The major weakness lies in the fatal flaw of their goal. Every socialist society has imploded! Unfortunately, we need to wait until this happens - timing is everything.

So what do we do. First, be patient. In the meantime become organized, conduct our own Psyops, and develop a plan for the end-game. As to the end-game - a Constitutional Convention. Risky? I know, but consider the alternatives. The tactic - Article V of the US Constitution. At the latest count I think there are 32 states behind the petition in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. This is 2 short of the needed 2/3 for a Constitutional Convention. If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.

None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.

i fixed it for you.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support)
.....
If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.

None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.

Your words resonate. I would surmise this includes disseminating ground-truth to others and being able to talk, on one's feet without notes (or teleprompter), to specific history & current facts, versus a nebulous hope & change wish-list.

The Declaration of Independence (vs the Constitution) was, as mentioned, a grievance list. It also seems to me that it was, on another level, a press-release to those not on the "To:" line. "Here's what's gone on, fact. Here's what we've tried, fact. We've not been successful, the situation continues to worsen rather than improve & things are about to get sporty."

I could be mistaken but continuing to carry a factual message - personally, via the web, or hand-written letter, by whatever means - seems crucial, lest someone else craft it for you. Constantly trying to return their power-serve doesn't seem very productive. Is that in the scope of your PSYOPs?

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Your words resonate. I would surmise this includes disseminating ground-truth to others and being able to talk, on one's feet without notes (or teleprompter), to specific history & current facts, versus a nebulous hope & change wish-list.

The Declaration of Independence (vs the Constitution) was, as mentioned, a grievance list. It also seems to me that it was, on another level, a press-release to those not on the "To:" line. "Here's what's gone on, fact. Here's what we've tried, fact. We've not been successful, the situation continues to worsen rather than improve & things are about to get sporty."

I could be mistaken but continuing to carry a factual message - personally, via the web, or hand-written letter, by whatever means - seems crucial, lest someone else craft it for you. Constantly trying to return their power-serve doesn't seem very productive. Is that in the scope of your PSYOPs?

Right on target. Fire for effect. {Salute}

[Trapper John]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

[/COLOR]i fixed it for you.

Thanks Dozer523 {Salute}

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Trapper John

I agree. I also don't think that secession is a viable option, although I completely agree with sentiment. There is an alternative and that will require patience. First, we need to understand the opposition, his strengths, weakness, strategy, weapons, numbers, etc. A good read is the Curley effect [see JSMosby "Looters War Against Wealth" in the General Discussion Forum]. This is the new reality and permanent political power for the opposition is at hand. The next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton - 2 terms The opposition's numbers are 53% (est) of the electorate. Their principle weapon is the tax code. Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support). The major weakness lies in the fatal flaw of their goal. Every socialist society has imploded! Unfortunately, we need to wait until this happens - timing is everything.

So what do we do. First, be patient. In the meantime become organized, conduct our own Psyops, and develop a plan for the end-game. As to the end-game - a Constitutional Convention. Risky? I know, but consider the alternatives. The tactic - Article V of the US Constitution. At the latest count I think there are 32 states behind the petition in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. This is 2 short of the needed 2/3 for a Constitutional Convention. If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.

None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.

Maybe it is just me, but my feeling is that if we actually were able to convince those in politics to follow the Constitution as written, we wouldn't need a Constitutional Convention. And be careful what you ask for, it might just happen, but not in the way you hope.

We have enough laws as it is. We don't need anymore to enforce the ones already on the books.

We don't need term limits, we already have them. It is called voting the bastards out. A couple go arounds of the incumbents being voted out, regardless of the party, and they might come to realize they aren't guaranteed a job. And if the majority doesn't want to do that, well that is why it is a majority and we have the government we deserve.

If the Congress would do their jobs, and pass a reasonable budget every year, we wouldn't need a balanced budget ammendment.

I personally believe the Republicans should get out of the way, and let the Dems have every damn thing they want for the next two years. Then mabe the majority will begin to see that socialism is not the answer to our problems, and they can't blame the Repubs for stonewalling. The dems will own it all. I don't think the Repubs will have a problem taking the Senate after that as long as they aren't stupid enough to run the same type of folks they did this time around. When your choices are Todd Akin and Claire Mckaskill, it isn't too difficult of a decision if you ask me.