Secession from the Federal Government


dcselby1

Denny
Arizona wants to secede from the Union and as a favor I'm asking for your vote: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ca-and-create-its-own-new-government/GrZPNqcX We need less than 10,000 votes by December 10, 2012, I just read it is less than 7,000 votes. All help would be appreciated. This is no guarantee, but it will show Arizona is serious about leaving the US.

Obama just does not get it, The US is ran by our US Constitution and Bill of Right, "We The People" are a free people to make choices on how we shall live, we have only one GOD and not the many he can turn to. Obama Wake Up you are losing at least 3 states if not all 40 states...

Thank You[/QUOTE] SFC, I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Supreme Court once decided that it unconstitutional to secede from the Union. Seems a decision was handed down not too long after the Civil War. That being the case, Obama will now have the addresses of several hundred thousand people who need to be "re-educated" as they used to say.
Something from Glenn Beck: From Glenn Beck regarding the spate of ‘secession petitions:’ “This is exactly the kind of fuel the president will use to order measures to ‘protect’ the Republic. And he’ll have the Department of Homeland Security at his disposal to enforce them.”
Here’s Why Glenn Beck Says to Stop All Those Secession Petitions | Video | TheBlaze.com
 

the dark

New member
ALL Red States need to unite and secede. Federal tax's will no longer be sent in blindly to the Treasury. Red States will have its own depository and apportion accordingly. Reds states could, oh I don't know, maybe adopt the US Constitution as written and start over again.

As for the free loaders, buck up and start to contribute or move. As always choices, we all have choices.

As long as you recognize that the bulk of the tax base is in the "Blue" states and a disproportionate goes to the "Red" states. I never realized how whiny and melodramatic this new brand of pseudo-conservatives could be, how little they believe in the Union that they want to run away from it. Quite a sad spectacle...scared of shadows and scary stories, seeing end times, swooning all over the place.
 

fstroupe

New member
The Supreme Court has never decided on secession. No law has ever been written, no serious attempt at a Constitutional amendment performed.

Everyone assumed that a 4.25 year war that cost maybe 750K lives (new estimates are much higher than the original 650K number) which was more than all other wars America has been involved in combined, economically destroyed the offenders for the next three generations, removed their rights as US citizens for 17 years, cost more than twice what the country had spent collectively up to 1860, would be enough to discourage any future attempts at secession.

I guess not.
 

walt629

New member
I completely understand the sentiments here. If I could form my own little island in the sun, under the laws that I thought were just, I would have my own utopia. We'd all like to have the same scenario.

However, brushing the emotions aside, we have to realize that no single state can economically stand on its own without throwing it's economy back into the 1950's state of financial status. Once you start to look at the amount of federa; tax dollars each of the states get and what those dollars provide in each state, you have to take a look at how you're going to replace those dollars or how you're going to eliminate the services those dollars supplied. The majority of the states take in more federal dollars than they put out so the "We'll keep our tax dollars" doesn't wash in the majority of the state.

Of the leaders calling for succession, Texas and Florida are 2 that give more than they take. Arizona, New Mexico and Mississippi all get more that what they give.
United States Federal Tax Dollars -

Regardless of what the reasoning is, no venture can succeed if the economics of it aren't worked out first.

Ignoring the financial aspects, what about the security of the newly formed nation? How will the newly formed nation defend it self if the other state/nation decides to invade and take back what 'you' took from them? If you have nukes, will you use them? I think not. And the threat to use them are wholly unrealistic. Do you honestly believe that the state guard will have the remote possibility to stand against the USMC or the USAF? Each state may have it's own toys, but the USA has many more and the infrastructure to drive them and wage real war.

The ramblings of succession are an emotional one driven by the feelings of being betrayed by the government that is supposed to represent you. It's a crushing blow when you realize that the population has changed dramatically while you were asleep and you are no longer part of the majority. It is a scary feeling. I'm going through the same thing right now. But "taking your toys and going home" is not the answer. You cannot always do better by yourself.

The real way to work on changing the nation for the better is to come to grips with the reality of the changes is our scoiatal structure and work with what you have to change the things you don't like. The starting point is at the state level. Electing local representatives that will represent your views is the start. Then move on from there.

But there will always come a time when you no longer share the views of the majority (me in this particular case) and how you deal with that will determine if you survive as part of the society or get crushed under the weight of opposition. If you are of the mind that you can force those that oppose your views into submission either through threats or intimidation (threat of succession) then I pose that you are no better than the forces you want to oppose.
 

The_Outlaw

~The Dude Abides~
I completely understand the sentiments here. If I could form my own little island in the sun, under the laws that I thought were just, I would have my own utopia. We'd all like to have the same scenario.

However, brushing the emotions aside, we have to realize that no single state can economically stand on its own without throwing it's economy back into the 1950's state of financial status. Once you start to look at the amount of federa; tax dollars each of the states get and what those dollars provide in each state, you have to take a look at how you're going to replace those dollars or how you're going to eliminate the services those dollars supplied. .

The Federal Gubbament needs Texas way more than Texas needs the Federal Gubbament.
The great state of Texas has enough of it's own resources to both survive & thrive on it's own merits.
 

dcselby1

Denny
The Supreme Court has never decided on secession. No law has ever been written, no serious attempt at a Constitutional amendment performed.

Everyone assumed that a 4.25 year war that cost maybe 750K lives (new estimates are much higher than the original 650K number) which was more than all other wars America has been involved in combined, economically destroyed the offenders for the next three generations, removed their rights as US citizens for 17 years, cost more than twice what the country had spent collectively up to 1860, would be enough to discourage any future attempts at secession.

I guess not.
I suppose it could be re-visited but the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 (Texas Vs. White) "that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede." So, why in hell are people sending in their names and addresses to the very government that may come after them as many people fear?
 

SFC

New member
I guess none of that will matter as Arizona is way above the required signatures to secede from the Muslim regime of Obama. According the US Constitution

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
Article VII Annotations

Article VII - Ratification

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. In General

In Owings v. Speed, 1 the question at issue was whether the Constitution of the United States operated upon an act of Virginia passed in 1788. The Court held it did not, stating in part:

''The Conventions of nine States having adopted the Constitution, Congress, in September or October, 1788, passed a resolution in conformity with the opinions expressed by the Convention, and appointed the first Wednesday in March of the ensuing year as the day, and the then seat of Congress as the place, 'for commencing proceedings under the Constitution.'

''Both Governments could not be understood to exist at the same time. The New Government did not commence until the old Government expired. It is apparent that the Government did not commence on the Constitution being ratified by the ninth State; for these ratifications were to be reported to Congress, whose continuing existence was recognized by the Convention, and who were requested to continue to exercise their powers for the purpose of bringing the new Government into operation. In fact, Congress did continue to act as a Government until it dissolved on the 1st of November, by the successive disappearance of its Members. It existed potentially until the 2d of March, the day proceeding that on which the Members of the new Congress were directed to assemble.

''The resolution of the Convention might originally have suggested a doubt, whether the Government could be in operation for every purpose before the choice of a President; but this doubt has been long solved, and were it otherwise, its discussion would be useless, since it is apparent that its operation did not commence before the first Wednesday in March 1789 . . . .''

It is settled law that the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: A state or group of states cannot simply leave the Union over the objections of the national government. However, the arguments that led to this settled understanding are hardly unassailable, and the Constitution is probably best read as permitting the mutually agreed upon departure of one or more states.

In 1790, the House of Representatives received a petition from a group of Pennsylvania abolitionists that included Benjamin Franklin. In response, members of the Georgia and South Carolina Congressional delegations intimated that if Congress attempted to manumit slaves, their states would leave the Union.

The threat was taken seriously. Congress denied the Pennsylvanians the relief they sought, an immediate abolition of the slave trade. Moreover, in response to the petition, a House resolution was passed affirming that Congress lacked any power to abolish slavery.

Secessionist sentiment in the early American Republic was not confined to Southern defenders of slavery. In 1804, members of the declining Federalist Party in New England and New York plotted secession from a country ruled by the Republican Thomas Jefferson. And again in 1815, at the Hartford Convention, New England Federalists considered (though they ultimately rejected) secession as a means of promoting the sectional interests that they thought President James Madison's prosecution of the War of 1812 was harming.

For the rest of the pre-Civil War period, arguments for secession were typically made by Southerners such as John Calhoun whenever it appeared that national action to limit slavery was under contemplation.

If Obama is all that good why is this the first time in the history of the US, forty (40) states want to secede from the Union. Since 2008 Arizona requested to secede from the Union but Senators talked Arizona from doing so, there will be no negotiations this time around. As far as the 9 states to ratify, according to the US Constitution it means it could be only one state. Texas wants to be their own government, Utah sent a document letter to the Obama Administration stating the Federal Government land has been taken over by the State Of Utah and the Federal Government has no more claims to Utah's properties to included the property that once belong to the Federal Government. No Reply heard back. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma and others are getting close if not already past the required needed signatures.

The U.S. Constitution does not expressly recognize or deny a right of secession. In this view, the Constitution is a kind of multilateral treaty, which derives its legal effect from the consent of the sovereign parties to it. Just as sovereign nations can withdraw from a treaty, so too can the sovereign states withdraw from the Union.

If Congress Alone Approves a Secession Petition, What Counts as Approval?

The first difficulty is a matter of arithmetic.

Suppose that Congress simultaneously received secession petitions from all the blue states, and that the Congressional delegations of these states all supported these petitions. Suppose further that a minority of the Congressional representatives of the red states also supported the petitions. (Their reaction: "Good riddance.") Adding the votes of representatives from the blue states to the votes of representatives from the minority of red states would yield a pro-secession majority in the existing Congress.

But notice what happens if Congress permits secession under these circumstances: Secession will have been allowed even though a majority of the representatives of one of the resulting pieces--the remaining red state rump United States--opposed it. That hardly seems consistent with the notion of secession by mutual agreement.

One might thus conclude that Congress can only approve a secession petition if the controlling bill obtains a majority of the votes of representatives of non-seceding states in both houses of Congress.

But while that solution makes some theoretical sense, it is also, from a constitutional perspective, arbitrary. Why this particular mechanism rather than some other mechanism--such as a national referendum, or a two-thirds (or three-quarters or three-fifths) vote in the existing Congress?

A Political Question: Why No Court May Ever Rule on Secession

With respect to the possibility of secession by mutual agreement, we are left in much the same position that Americans in the first seven decades of the Union occupied with respect to unilateral secession: We must struggle to interpret the sounds of the Constitution's silence.

That conclusion in turn suggests that no court will likely answer the question--except perhaps in the way that the Supreme Court in Texas v. White gave its retroactive approval to the verdict of the Civil War battlefield.

Fortunately, the prospect of a twenty-first century civil war that, like the Civil War of the nineteenth century, results in the deaths of over half a million Americans, still seems unthinkable. That should serve as a useful reminder that, whatever the real differences between Americans in blue states and red states are today, they are nothing like the differences that just a few generations ago divided citizens of the blue states and the gray states.
 

Treo

Bullet Proof
Yeah, but i'm still waiting ofr you to cite that Obam threatened to send the UN into Arizona
 

S&W645

NRA Life Member
Remember, blue areas are a lot smaller than the red areas as far as land mass and that area is what feeds the blue areas. States shapes won't remain the same if they break free. Remember how WV came about. So states that only have urban areas that are blue would be isolated from the red areas and the Feds would have to feed them or watch them perish. The war that ensued would be like Vietnam, only here. A guerrilla war like founded this country in the first place.
 

SFC

New member
Thank You[/QUOTE said:
SFC, I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Supreme Court once decided that it unconstitutional to secede from the Union. Seems a decision was handed down not too long after the Civil War. That being the case, Obama will now have the addresses of several hundred thousand people who need to be "re-educated" as they used to say.
Something from Glenn Beck: From Glenn Beck regarding the spate of ‘secession petitions:’ “This is exactly the kind of fuel the president will use to order measures to ‘protect’ the Republic. And he’ll have the Department of Homeland Security at his disposal to enforce them.”
Here’s Why Glenn Beck Says to Stop All Those Secession Petitions | Video | TheBlaze.com

I'm not a fan of Glenn Beck, but I can see how he could turn this around and confuse the people as he usually will do in every case.

This is an original suit in this court, in which the State of Texas, claiming certain bonds of the United States as her property, asks an injunction to restrain the defendants from receiving payment from the National government, and to compel the surrender of the bonds to the State.

The first of these allegations is disproved by the evidence. A letter of authority, the authenticity of which is not disputed, has been produced, in which J. W. Throckmorton, elected governor under the constitution adopted in 1866 and proceeding under an act of the State legislature relating to these bonds, expressly ratifies and confirms the action of the solicitors who filed the bill, and empowers them to prosecute this suit, and it is further proved by the affidavit of Mr. Paschal, counsel for the complainant, that he was duly appointed by Andrew J. Hamilton, while provisional governor of Texas, to represent the State of Texas in reference to the bonds in controversy, and that his appointment has been renewed by E. M. Pease, the actual governor. If Texas was a State of the Union at the time of these acts, and these persons, or either of them, were competent to represent the State, this proof leaves no doubt upon the question of authority.

The other allegation presents a question of jurisdiction. It is not to be questioned that this court has original jurisdiction of suits by States against citizens of other States, or that the States entitled to invoke this jurisdiction must be States of the Union. But it is equally clear that no such jurisdiction has been conferred upon this court of suits by any other political communities than such States.

The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act, the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution.

From the date of admission until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States.

On the 1st of February, a convention, called without authority but subsequently sanctioned by the legislature regularly elected, adopted an ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Texas and the other States under the Constitution of the United States, whereby Texas was declared to be "a separate and sovereign State," and "her people and citizens" to be "absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the government thereof."

It was ordered by a vote of the convention and by an act of the legislature that this ordinance should be submitted to the people, for approval or disapproval, on the 23d of February, 1861.

As you can see the Supreme Court was only involved in Texas vs White and not the Sovereignty Of The State of Texas leaving the Union
 

Errokk

New member
I like the idea, unfortunately private citizens can't really petition the Federal Government on behalf of their states, for secession or anything, really. Because the "state" and not the individual citizens joined the Union, only the states can petition the Feds to allow secession. That being said, while I agree with the sentiment and desire to be out from under this administration, my biggest fear is the Feds using the lists of petition signers as a list of people to pay more attention to. Sort of a short list of people to pick up when the SHTF.

You sir, make really good sense. I myself hope that all this succession talk is just that, talk. I also hope it's a cold slap in the face to the Obama administration and might hopefully persuade a more realistic solution to all these issues we as American's feel need to be remedied.

Beans and CornBread!
 

Treo

Bullet Proof
He only does that to Texas during the presidential election.

Then show me an actual sourced quote where Obama actually threatened that, just one link will do

I mean you did claim this

(11) Obama threatens to send in the UN to keep the peace and remove our firearms, The constitution also states that there shall be no foreign government allowed in the state of Arizona to include the UN as the people had a right to protect themselves against all foreign and domestic threats.

right?

Let's see the proof
 

SFC

New member
Then show me an actual sourced quote where Obama actually threatened that, just one link will do

I mean you did claim this
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/a...es-new-un-arms-trade-treaty-negotiations.aspx

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila.aspx?s=NRA v. UN

http://www.petition2congress.com/6882/tell-congress-to-stop-obamas-martial-law-executive-order/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2R0deGHpck

HCR 2034:If Martial Law, Arizona Will Secede

Link Removed

Link Removed

http://www.northernarizonagazette.com/tag/united-nations/

Link Removed

Texas may say Don't Mess With Texas, Arizona says Don't Even Think About It and if You Do PAPERS PLEASE



right?

Let's see the proof

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wo...servers-with-arrest-governor-perry-weighs-in/

Link Removed



Hey I love challenge, keep me on my toes Treo, someone needs to. I hope this is what you were looking for
 

Treo

Bullet Proof
Hey I love challenge, keep me on my toes Treo, someone needs to. I hope this is what you were looking for

To be honest I'm ignoring the infowars link but the nraila stuff does make this much more credible IMO
 

SFC

New member
Treo there is no problem, I really do not care for Alex, Glen and the rest of the whoremunger's of the internet doing nothing more than confusing the real truth as the rumormonger's that reaches out as the flibbertigibbet on all forums to include Facebook, which is another place that really loves to stir up more problems that seem believable but if they are too real to believe then they are too believable to actually to bet the farm on.

BTW I have become a member at http//www.gunrightsmedia.com/ I'm always researching for all avenues that lead me to the correct answers. The same as the way I am a member here to gain knowledge. With members like yourself challenging with questions looking for the answers.

Keep up with the challenging questions til you get the right answer
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,595
Messages
625,390
Members
74,538
Latest member
joshwells_22
Top