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.
Won't even take nukes. If a seceding state is attacked by the feds, just a small number of people could use EMP devices to wipe out the national power grid, wiping out the country effectively.
Remember, a big chunk of the northern tier transmission grid runs through MT.
And if the state were to "nationalize" Montana Power ... hmm. As I recall, the system at Great Falls can generate a whopping surplus.
I can read English and it's clear the SC has ruled. Secession is unconstitutional.
You clearly do not understand law at all, because what you posted is quite incorrect. And if you could read English you'd know the Constitution does not forbid secession.
And the SCOTUS has ruled many things to be later overturned as biased, false decisions. Seperate but equal, for instance...
You clearly do not understand law at all, because what you posted is quite incorrect. And if you could read English you'd know the Constitution does not forbid secession.
And the SCOTUS has ruled many things to be later overturned as biased, false decisions. Seperate but equal, for instance...
Not many at all. If and when the Supreme Court takes up the issue of secession in the future (don't hold your breath) they might reverse themselves, but until then states do not have the unilateral right to secede.
That's actually pretty standard in any contract. The parties are bound by their agreement unless they mutually agree to modify it. The essence of a contract.
I agree 100%.
I have a question for the Traitors that want to tear this nation apart, what is stopping you, go for it, let's get this done once and for all, are you feeling lucky? Why is it I have the feeling you are a bunch of cowards that would pee themselves if confronted with a real fight. Any of you ever serve in the military, in combat, for a police department? I doubt many, if any, of you have; you are armchair warriors at best, loudmouth cowards most likely and definitely Traitors.
I know the meaning and I understand that some want to incorrectly interpret Texas v White. The decision hinged upon secession being unconstitutional. It was a necessary finding to support the decision and therefore not judicial dictum.
I know the meaning and I understand that some want to incorrectly interpret Texas v White. The decision hinged upon secession being unconstitutional. It was a necessary finding to support the decision and therefore not judicial dictum.
Nope, it's widely accepted the commentary on secession is dicta. The only binding, precedent setting portion of the case was the brief, actual, decision that I quoted earlier, which made no reference to secession. The rest was dicta. I researched this heavily as it was my final, major paper, in my college days. Read many, many articles written by lawyers over the years...it's dicta. Just like most of the Heller decision on guns was dicta, commentary on how they came to their decision but non-binding itself. Read any case from the SCOTUS and it's the same way, lots of dicta explaining how they came to their decision, and sometimes, even going way off topic (for instance, in Heller: discussing the history of militias, machineguns, concealed carry versus open carry, and so forth, when the decision itself was only about the handgun ban in DC).
And the dissenting justices in TX v. White thoroughly tore apart Chase's argument, regarding the status of TX. The court under Chase acted as though TX never left the union and was still a state like any other, yet, at the same time and well into the 1870's, TX was treated by the federal government as a territory, not a state. Can't have it both ways...was TX always a state after its original statehood or not?
"DICTUM, practice. Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case."
"2. Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination. "If," says Huston, J., in Frants v. Brown, 17 Serg. & Rawle, 292, "general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled." "What I have said or written, out of the case trying," continues the learned judge, "or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered. And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion." And it was considered by another learned judge. Mr. Baron Richards, to be a "great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions." 1 Phillim. Rep. 1406; S. C. 1 Eng. Ecc. R. 129; Ram. on Judgm. ch. 5, p. 36; Willes' Rep. 666; 1 H. Bl. 53-63; 2 Bos. & P. 375; 7 T. R. 287; 3 B. & A. 341; 2 Bing. 90. The doctrine of the courts of France on this subject is stated in 11 Toull. 177, n. 133."
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.
