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.
No...simply what this nation was for a long long time....until the federal government became our nanny....and our dictator.
The United States has not been a Confederation since the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the US Constitution in 1788. The US is a federal republic, a federation of states with a republican form of government.
Majority opinion of Salmon Chase in Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700) (1869):
"Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."
Either way, Chase believed that secession was illegal under the auspices of the Constitution.
No, Chase did not believe that secession was illegal. When he was part of Lincoln's administration he specifically advised Lincoln that prosecuting the secessionists for treason was not practical because legally the Constitution does not prohibit secession.
Texas v White was a decision handed down after the Civil War to bolster the actions of the federal government during the Civil War.
Secession is supported by the arguments put forth in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution never explicitly states that secession is prohibited. And the Constitution is a pretty explicit document. The Webster letters in 1833 actually bolster the secession arguments even though they were an argument against secession because they continue to support secession when conditions become "intolerable". "Intolerable" is a relative argument. The federal government would never consider the conditions it imposes as "intolerable", but the people on whom those conditions are being imposed might feel differently. When judicial relief is denied, the definition of "intolerable" becomes extremely relevant.
The federal government is never going to allow any state to secede. They've demonstrated that in the Civil War, and the federal government is many times more powerful now, than they were then. However, the federal government is going to use every means at its disposal to effect a peaceful resolution of any issues that drive a state to seriously consider secession.
While some individuals may be seriously advocating secession, the states are simply rattling their sabers in order to draw federal attention to various issues. Governor Perry is diplomatically trying to keep in the good graces of the saber-rattlers, while at the same time not actually advocating secession.
The party of Lincoln is slowly but surely morphing into a blatantly anti-American, extremely corrosive political party...
So much for their phoney-baloney pro-American party image - they're showing their true colors now.
IMHO - the Governor of Texas should be recalled from office for openly encouraging talk about Texas seceeding from the union... he should really be brought up on charges of TREASON....
You can't get any more anti-American than to advocate destruction of the Union - we fought a very bloody and destructive Civil War last time this talk was taken seriously...
As far as I'm concerned, those from Texas or Montana or Vermont who don't like it in this country can just MOVE OUT and make another country their home...
Theire you go still trying to spin. The ammendment is about citizens rights but clearly states that elected government officials or states can't participate in any rebellion(seccession) against the union. You can't change it, you are wrong be a grown up, accept it and move on.
The amendment is not about forbidding elected government officials, be they state or federal, from participating in secession movements. It's about forbidding persons who have participated in secession movements from being eligible to serve in office. And the fact that the exception of Congressional review is provided shows that. Congress isn't going to provide review and allow an elected official to participate in secession. But they might review someone who served in the Confederate Army and was subsequently elected to office post-Reconstruction, and decide to seat that person.
First the 14th amendment discusses Congressmen and Senators, not Governors
Second, do you at all understand the difference between a protest, and a rebellion?
....or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
What do you think a governor is if not an executive officer?
To be honest, I don't support the actual people who support the secession (because they want to secede for pretty selfish reasons), but I do support the rights of the states to determine their own path. If Montana or Texas decides they are better off without the help of the US Government, why not let them go? Our country is so bloated with so many different kinds of economies that it will never be an efficient system again. The nation should be more of a loose union like the EU than a powerful empire like the USSR. After all, the EU allows nations to make their own laws and tax their citizens how they wish, as long as they follow some basic human rights outlined in the EU Charter. The US forces all states to adhere to strict laws and taxes set by a government that cares more for the preservation of its empire than the individual needs of the citizens. If California votes to legalize pot or make gay marriage illegal, it should be the right of the State Government to do so without the interference of the Federal Government.
I've been supporting more freedom for each state for years now, not just because I'm bitter that an articulate half-black man was elected President, but because it's foolish to think that Alabama, Vermont, Hawaii, Alaska and California all face the same side of the same issues.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officerof any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
So . . . once Montana secedes, its elected representatives won't be allowed to hold office in the USSA?
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.
