Skip to main content

View Diary: White House Responds: No Secession Today Boys (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, it's illegal. That raises two questions. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice, George Hier

    How?  Is there actually a law written, voted on, and passed?  Or is this the "we killed enough people trying to leave that it proves it's illegal."

    Why?  Why would any of us want to be in a relationship that is indissoluble?  What is this, Hotel California?  If your partner wants out of a relationship, does it make sense to keep them, under penalty of death?  Isn't that more than just a little sick?

    I completely get that these petitions and threats are mere grandstanding.  The vast majority of the populations of those states want nothing to do with succession, so it's not even a slightly credible threat.  But if they really wanted to go, and end a relationship freely entered, why should they not be free to leave?

    When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

    by Bisbonian on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:29:23 PM PST

    •  Your answers are in Texas v White, which is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rsmpdx, Rimjob

      linked. For now that is the definitive interpretation of the Constitution.

      Further, affiant sayeth not.

      by Gary Norton on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:10:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, my answers are in Dred Scott (wiki): (0+ / 0-)

        It held that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the territories, and that people of African descent (both slave and free) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens. Since passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the decision has not been a precedent case, but retains historical significance as it is widely regarded as the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court
    •  2 of the 7 scotus justices that concurred were (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Nelson and Grier. They also voted for the Dred Scott decision. Thus, IMO, Texas vs. White has no credibility.
      From the Texas/White decision (wiki):

      Having settled the jurisdiction issue, Chase moved on to the question of who owned title to the bonds. In previous circuit court cases Chase had recognized the validity of legislative decisions intended solely to maintain peace and order within southern society. He had recognized the validity of "marriage licenses, market transactions, and other day-to-day acts legally sanctioned by the Confederate state governments". However he clearly treated actions in furtherance of the war effort in a different light
      Like Dred Scott they were making it up as they went along.
      Kind of like Scalia and his ilk back when they put the evil one (he whose name cannot be said) in power.
      •  What does the fact (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gary Norton, JayRaye

        that two out of the seven Justices concurred on Dred Scott have to do with anything? Even without them there would have been a majority of 5 to 4.

        I fail to see what the cite about Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase has to do with it either.

        Nothing human is alien to me.

        by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:37:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because..... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton

      Citizens of all 50 States have spent blood & treasure defending & investing in every State.

      I have as much right to travel to Texas, to take residence in Texas, and become a "Texan" as the people who live there because we're all Americans.

      The United States government and all of the citizens of the United States have interests & rights to every part of the union, and those rights can't just be stripped away at the whim of a majority within a particular State.

    •  because the States are not sovereign (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The United States of America is the sovereign entity.  That means all the territory that the States are in belongs to the sovereign US of A.  The State of Texas or Florida or whoever can't argue that its land does not belong to the United States any more than the city of Paris can argue that its land does not belong to the nation of France.

      So any State that wants to secede is fine if it can find a way to do it without taking any USA territory with it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site