Arizona to Secede?

:wave: Not even one Confederate charged with Treason?

you might want to find out what constitutes the treason charge. hint hint - US Constitution - Article III - Section 3

and you might want to find out how many treason cases we have had in American history. :cool2:
 
What does that have to do with the fact that Texas does not have a Consitutional right to sucede? Don't deflect. Own up to your mistakes.

show me where secession is absolutely forbidden (you said the war of 1812):


Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States - Texas State Library

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government in order that the same may by admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said state to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other government, --and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action on, or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. Second, said state when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines and armaments, and all other means pertaining to the public defense, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due and owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third -- New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

3. And be it further resolved, That if the President of the United States shall in his judgment and discretion deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution of the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States for admission, to negotiate with the Republic; then,

Be it resolved, That a State, to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representatives in Congress, until the next appointment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union, by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texian territory to the United States shall be agreed upon by the governments of Texas and the United States: And that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted to the two houses of Congress, as the President may direct.

Approved, March 1, 1845.

SOURCE:
Peters, Richard, ed., The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, v.5, pp. 797-798, Boston, Chas. C. Little and Jas. Brown, 1850.
 
here you go ....

Texas Secede! FAQ


Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:

"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.

To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.
 
and show me where secession is allowed.

hint - try to use the legal case, Constitution, Supreme Court ruling, etc. instead of some militia's word.

I'm still waiting for the section of the Constitution that provides it as a right. I think we've both got a long wait ahead of us. I'm gonna put the coffee on.:giggle:
 

You really do need to start reading and understanding what you read before you cut and paste. You now have the record for posting things that blow your own case right out of the water. Not only is it easy to pwn you, it's fun to sit around and watch you pwn yourself.:laugh2:
 
I'm still waiting for the section of the Constitution that provides it as a right. I think we've both got a long wait ahead of us. I'm gonna put the coffee on.:giggle:

I need to get some sleep. . . 10th amendment gives States the right to secede (if "the people" so choose).
 
I need to get some sleep. . . 10th amendment gives States the right to secede (if "the people" so choose).

no it doesn't. when you wake up with a clear head - you'll realize your own gaffe

:wave:
 
again - try to use the legal cases, Constitution, Supreme Court ruling, etc. instead of some militia's word. As you know - US Constitution > State Constitution

you might want to read the U.S. Supreme court cases cited in that "militia" link

So, there is no amendment specifically prohibiting secession, yet you and Jillio both say it is illegal .... on what grounds?
 
you might want to read the U.S. Supreme court cases cited in that "militia" link

So, there is no amendment specifically prohibiting secession, yet you and Jillio both say it is illegal .... on what grounds?

Are you actually trying to award credibility to a ranting and raving militia man? Can you say "indoctrination"?:laugh2:

It is illegal based on the treaty signed in the war of 1812 by Texas. How many times does that have to be said?

Likewise, you stated that it was a Consitutional right. In order to be a Constitutional right, the Consitution has to specifically provide for it. So, back up your claim that it is a Constitutional right by citing the specific area of the constitution that provides for secession as a Constitutional right. Or simply do the right thing, and admit that you were wrong and don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

States have historical right to secede | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri


There was this militia once .... in 1776 I believe ... they were deemed as traitors.

Interestingly enough, no Confederates were. That would have been a challenge to the interpretation of the Constitution.


yeah yeah ... I know ... tastes great ... less filling
 
Still does not support your claims.

you still haven't supported yours ... specifically, that states have no right to secede.

Where does it prohibit secession in the Constitution?

I am genuinely curious .... where?
 
you still haven't supported yours ... specifically, that states have no right to secede.

Where does it prohibit secession in the Constitution?

I am genuinely curious .... where?

I've supported it in several posts. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it hasn't been supported.

Do you think that asking the same question over and over is going to get you a different answer? The only person that has anything to support would be the one that claimed that secession is a Constitutional right. Quite obviously, you are beginning to understand that you cannot support that because it is false. So now you are trying to turn it around to save face. Best to just let it drop.

Texas signed away their right to secede in the war of 1812. I think that is the 4th or 5th time I have stated that. Do you understand it now?
 
Back
Top