Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alaska wouldn't even exist as part of The United States if the Federal government hadn't bought it from Russia. People there have quite a nerve to be anti Federal government.
If you had any awareness of reality whatsoever, you would be able to read and find that the biggest complaint is that the people were never given the vote on statehood as they were supposed to.
But, once again, yankee attitude says that Sugar Daddy government knows best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
Maybe secessionist Alaskans think the government overstepped it's bounds in purchasing it in which case I'm sure Russia would be glad to take it back.
Or, having the legally required vote on statehood, which would leave Alaska in the same situation as other territories (remain territory, commonwealth, statehood, or independence) such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.
Or would it be OK to force them to become states as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
As for secessionists in those parts of the south not the original 13 states, well those states exist because of the Federal government too. We can always give them back to the Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctows and such; to the French too. And Florida back to Spain.
And as you've been handed your butt on a platter in this area before, be granted independence if they choose as the founding fathers intended.
And as you've been handed your butt on a platter in this area before, be granted independence if they choose as the founding fathers intended.
So you continually assert. My butt sits on the reality of this nation as it eveolved and actually exists, your butt went down the rabbit hole. Your views are crankish and ungrounded in reality; mere tavern talk.
Just what is it you want? Do you want Alaska to secede from the Union because you think it was made a state illegally? Is that what you want?
Take you case for secession to the courts. They decide what's legal and constitutional, if you're right you'll win. Which makes one wonder why IF the rebels of 1861 thought they had a constitutional right to secede they didn't take it to the courts. But knowing there's no explicit constitutional right to secede they took up the sword. Why don't you? Ah well, The Supreme Court has since ruled there's no constitutional unilateral right to secede, guess you've no case.
Or run for office. If you're as dissatisfied with the state of things as you claim to be I don't see how you're content to sit at a computer and wrangle with me.
Last edited by Irishtom29; 07-27-2008 at 01:47 PM..
Which makes one wonder why IF the rebels of 1861 thought they had a constitutional right to secede they didn't take it to the courts. But knowing there's no explicit constitutional right to secede they took up the sword. Why don't you? Ah well, The Supreme Court has since ruled there's no constitutional unilateral right to secede, guess you've no case.
Irish Tom, you and I can usually discuss our disagreements on this question very reasonably and civilly, so I am sure we can do so now.
Anyway, my friend/worthy opponent, you frame the question wrong, IMHO. It is not whether or not the Southern states had a "right" to secede, but whether or not the federal government had the constitutional authority to use force to prevent it. The 9th and 10th amendments (of blessed memory) give the states and people all powers not specifically delegated to the central government by the constitution...and the document says nothing on the subject of secession.
As far as the Supreme Court ruling goes (and I am not a constitutional scholar by an means), I am assuming you are referrring to Texas v. White.
BUT...that ruling did not specifically address the issue of secession. The "legality" of secession was brought up peripherally in a legal dispute that basically involved bond sales. Therefore, in this instance, the corrollary assertion by the SCOTUS that Texas could never had legally seceded, in support of the ultimate ruling, was nothing more than incidental support for the said ruling. As it was once explained to me (paraphrased),
The 'holding' of a case is what the court decides about the issue presented to it. Any other pronouncements or explanations by a court are what is known as 'dicta', which, although it can be persuasive, is essentially the term for extraneous explanations or commentary that are not directly related to the issue before the court. The specific issue at trial is the only issue affected by the resolution of the court. The 'dicta' that emerge from a hearing or during trial are of no legal consequence."
Anyway, secession is not something that can ever be settled by a court of law. It involves a people believing they have a right to govern themselves according to the principle that government derives its powers solely from the consent of the governed. If a Union must be held together by force, then it is no longer a Union in the proper sense.
Oh well, I always enjoy exchanges with you, IrishT...even if you irritate the hell out of me sometime! (just kidding! LOL).
Well Tex I maintain the nation, the Union, has the authority to hold itself together. The Constitution states that it's intention is to form a "more perfect union", that's plain speaking. Note that the Articles of Confederation established a "perpetual union", we may assume the more perfect union of the Constitution was to strengthen that notion.
Then there's the common sense notion that holds that no nation forms itself in order to later dissolve.
Note that the secessionists of 1861 did not call upon a Jeffersonian "right to revolution"; being slaveholders they didn't want to touch that one with a ten foot pole.
I see it like this---the nation is built upon the notion of representative government and free elections. If a group which doesn't like the result of an election or the political results of elections is justified in leaving then free elections and representative government have no meaning. The alternatives are anarchy or oligarchy or , the worst of both worlds, both at the same time.
I stand by the institutions and political traditions of The United States----free men having free elections and the losers of those elections acting as loyal Americans and working to win the next election.
I think old Abe summed it all up pretty well in his little speech at Gettysburg, one which often sounds cliched we've heard it so much but which bears careful reading and thought.
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
This topic got waaaaaaaaaaay off topic. Anyway, this guy is obviously mixed-up. His statements don't really seem to be a proud to a southerner thing. It is more of a "I hate Yankees" thing and anything that seems to be the opposite of what the "Yankees" represent is something that appeals to him. Let him fly the flag. He's trying to hard to fit into a stereotype.
Therein lies the problem. It's the way you see it. However, the founding fathers (you know, the ones who wrote the US Constitution) stated quite articulately that the right to secede was very important to the strength of the union.
What I would like to see here is for the vote on statehood that is being pressed. Then we can get down to business on whichever side the vote turns out.
But, I think the one thing that would strengthen our union more than anything is for more states to take steps toward asserting their rights under the Constitution, as OK and MT have, to make the Fed wake up and quit usurping authority that does not belong to it.
As to the OP, he has the right idea for what the flag symbolizes in spite of those who try to turn it into something racist.
Therein lies the problem. It's the way you see it. However, the founding fathers (you know, the ones who wrote the US Constitution) stated quite articulately that the right to secede was very important to the strength of the union.
Yet failed to express such a right in the Constitution? And you imply the founding fathers were of one mind on this but of course they weren't.
[quote=sukwoo;4585561 Still, I'm sure crazier things have been done before, so, whatever, if it makes you feel like a rebel, go ahead and do it. Be prepared for the consequences though.[/QUOTE]There is (was?) a black skin-head in Chicago who had a swastika tattooed on his forehead. There are also Mexicans who use the swastika in Mexico to denote their pure indigenous race.
Yet failed to express such a right in the Constitution? And you imply the founding fathers were of one mind on this but of course they weren't.
Yet they didn't put in the Constitution that states don't have the right, either. (There was also some strife about putting the Bill of Rights together because there was "no need" to do that because they were all givens, and look at things today.)
Which founding fathers denied this right, BTW? I provided several examples of those who said it was a basic right, and unless I missed it, you claim there were others with contrary views but you didn't post any.
People claim Alaska isn't rightly an American state because we didn't follow United Nations guidelines?
That's part of it, but not all of it. Have the vote and get it over with.
Individual states are supposed to be self-governing, except in areas that are specifically given over to the Fed. Yet the Fed violates that contract constantly. That's why MT declared that their position as a state would be null and void if the SCOTUS ruled incorrectly on the Heller v DC case.
Without the possibility of secession, self-government (and liberty) cannot be maintained. This threat, like the 2nd Amendment, is necessary for protection against tyranny in goverment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
