[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So a portion of the people can’t break away? Like in the American revolution?[/quote]
Well, they can - if they can invoke the right of revolution. That is a different issue than “the people” deciding constitutional matters as the rightful sovereign.[/quote]
But constitutional maters can be grievances.
The whole point is there’s no legal channel for secession and revolution because those are things you do when the government no longer serves its purpose and there’s not an immediate reconciliation possible. That
s the gist of my earlier link- why the hell would you ask permission to secede? You’re seceding! You’re expressing your feelings about the government, why then would you really ask that government to give you permission to go?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“IN LAW”
Judicial review is above law. It’s not there.[/quote]
This plain dumb. “In law” and “in equity” means that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction as to both money damages and equitable relief (non-monetary relief, like injunctions, etc.). That is what that means, Einstein.
[/quote]
And it means they have jurisdiction within the framework of the law. NOT over the framework of the law.
And you never answered. Was the north committing treason by aiding in the escape of slaves? Should they not have obeyed the law until the supreme court or the legislature fixed the situation?
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
voiding a law is a legislative power. Shouldn’t section 1 prohibit judicial review?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Especially given that the voiding of the contract would be revolution.[/quote]
No, it wouldn’t - it woudl be voiduing the contract (more like breaching it). Whether it is revolution or not depends on whether the natural rights were violated or not.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But constitutional maters can be grievances.[/quote]
Meaningless sentence.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But constitutional maters can be grievances.[/quote]
Meaningless sentence.
[/quote]
It means that a group of people can take up revolution based on constitutional maters. It is pertinent.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Especially given that the voiding of the contract would be revolution.[/quote]
No, it wouldn’t - it woudl be voiduing the contract (more like breaching it). Whether it is (justified) revolution or not depends on whether the natural rights were violated or not.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
[quote]byukid wrote:
The whole point is there’s no legal channel for secession and revolution because those are things you do when the government no longer serves its purpose and there’s not an immediate reconciliation possible. That’s the gist of my earlier link- why the hell would you ask permission to secede? You’re seceding! You’re expressing your feelings about the government, why then would you really ask that government to give you permission to go?[/quote]
Secession isn’t “expressing your feelings about the government” - it’s exiting an entity via the agreed upon procedure. If no such procedural right exists, you can’t secede.
If you have the procedural right, you don’t permission (unless a vote of others is required) - you just exercise your right to secede within the procedure.
And, yes, there can be a legal channel for secession - The EU has that available in the Lisbon Treaty.
The Constitution didn’t provide for it because the intent was that the Union would be perpetual.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means that a group of people can take up revolution based on constitutional maters. It is pertinent.[/quote]
Nope, not every constitutional right is a revolution-worthy natural right.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It means that a group of people can take up revolution based on constitutional maters. It is pertinent.[/quote]
Nope, not every constitutional right is a revolution-worthy natural right.
[/quote]
Says who?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Anything that affects life liberty or the pursuit of happiness is fair game at minimum.
Hell, I’d argue that the failure of the fed to secure and make the southern boarder safe are justification enough for texas to do what they need to to make themselves safe.
“as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
The fed is failing to keep them safe securing the boarder, Texas has the right to usurp federal authority to secure the safety of it’s citizens.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Says who?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Anything that affects life liberty or the pursuit of happiness is fair game at minimum.[/quote]
Under your theory, we’d have no nation at all. If all that is required to “revolt” is the (preceived) violation of a constitutional right, not a single state would bother joining the Union. Why would it? If any state can claim “violation of the constitution” at any time with respect to a policy it happened not to like, and who can tell them no? That they’re wrong?
So a state can just claim “violation” whenever it wants? By bother having a federal Congress to pass laws that a state can just claim “violation” whenever it wants? Why give a state a voice and representation in the Senate if that voice is meaningless?
Your claim is just plain absurd. What state joins a Union where any state can just, whenever it wants, manufacture a violation of constitutional right (with no one to tell them they are wrong or right) and leave?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Says who?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Anything that affects life liberty or the pursuit of happiness is fair game at minimum.[/quote]
Under your theory, we’d have no nation at all. If all that is required to “revolt” is the (preceived) violation of a constitutional right, not a single state would bother joining the Union. Why would it? If any state can claim “violation of the constitution” at any time with respect to a policy it happened not to like, and who can tell them no? That they’re wrong?
So a state can just claim “violation” whenever it wants? By bother having a federal Congress to pass laws that a state can just claim “violation” whenever it wants? Why give a state a voice and representation in the Senate if that voice is meaningless?
Your claim is just plain absurd. What state joins a Union where any state can just, whenever it wants, manufacture a violation of constitutional right (with no one to tell them they are wrong or right) and leave?
[/quote]
I never claimed state. I claimed people.
And a grievance bad enough to motivate the individual to rise up in large enough numbers to demand removal from the union, isn’t just any law.
If the people of a state like texas were pissed off enough at the federal government to try to leave the union, it cannot possibly be as mundane as you make it out to be.
Good debate TB. I know I don’t let on with my posting, but you are one of the few posters I actually expand my knowlege with. Even if I don’t agree.
I’m off for some target practice. I just got some bowling pins I’m anxious to put some holes in.
What people are missing is the fact that when Texas was annexed, it is believed by us Texans that language was put into the annexation agreement that should the State not agree with the direction of the Fed. Gov. we can go back to being our own country. This is a popular thought in Texas. Kind of like folklore. This article helps clear it up though. It won’t happen.
http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8425/can-texas-secede-from-the-union-no