The DOI does grant Texas the right to dissolve ties with the union. Call it whatever you want.
Even given the vary nature of a contract, they have the possible right to void it. The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. If it can be laid forth that the government has violated the contract, Texas can refuse to be bound by it’s terms.
[quote]riddle22 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Please explain why the 2 are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
He just did…
“…[in a secession] you can simply exercise your legal right to leave in accordance with agreed upon procedures. In a revolution, there ain’t any such procedure…”
EDIT: I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with what he said, just pointing out the explanation he already provided.[/quote]
Well, why does secession have to be through legal channels? And if so, would not nullification (as I mentioned) taken to its extreme be that?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]riddle22 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Please explain why the 2 are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
He just did…
“…[in a secession] you can simply exercise your legal right to leave in accordance with agreed upon procedures. In a revolution, there ain’t any such procedure…”[/quote]
So what was the agreed upon procedure in the civil war?
How about you guys just give a concise definition for each. Thunderbolt keeps adding conditions.[/quote]
Obviously there was not agreed upon procedure or there wouldn’t have been a war. I’m no expert on constitutional law, but I doubt there is any such procedure now and I think that is the reason people are saying Texas wouldn’t be able to secede. To forcibly separate from the federal government is a completely different thing and I’m not going to argue semantics except to say that secession via legal means and separation by force are apples and oranges.
[quote]riddle22 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]riddle22 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Please explain why the 2 are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
He just did…
“…[in a secession] you can simply exercise your legal right to leave in accordance with agreed upon procedures. In a revolution, there ain’t any such procedure…”[/quote]
So what was the agreed upon procedure in the civil war?
How about you guys just give a concise definition for each. Thunderbolt keeps adding conditions.[/quote]
Obviously there was not agreed upon procedure or there wouldn’t have been a war. I’m no expert on constitutional law, but I doubt there is any such procedure now and I think that is the reason people are saying Texas wouldn’t be able to secede. To forcibly separate from the federal government is a completely different thing and I’m not going to argue semantics except to say that secession via legal means and separation by force are apples and oranges.
[/quote]
I’m cool with that. But then the civil war wasn’t secession, it was just revolution. Which is what I think the OP was talking about.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So what was the agreed upon procedure in the civil war?[/quote]
A constitutional convention was the only procedure available. There is no unilateral right of secession in the United States constitution, nor is there a right of nullification.
Asked and answered, above.
It seems everyone is trying to argue semantics that are beyond any of our level of expertise and are irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was ‘can Texas secede?’ and my answer would be that there is no way that could actually be accomplished solely by legal means, whether that is considered constitutional or not. It would have to be done by force and does it really matter at all whether it’s called a secession or a revolution?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m cool with that. But then the civil war wasn’t secession, it was just revolution. Which is what I think the OP was talking about.[/quote]
Correct, it wasn’t a secession, and it wasn’t a revolution. No denial of natural rights had occurred for Southern states to invoke revolution. So, it was treason.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m cool with that. But then the civil war wasn’t secession, it was just revolution. Which is what I think the OP was talking about.[/quote]
Correct, it wasn’t a secession, and it wasn’t a revolution. No denial of natural rights had occurred for Southern states to invoke revolution. So, it was treason.
[/quote]
So to be called a revolution, there has to be a denial of rights? denial of rights is part of the definition of revolution?
And is denial of rights is a very tricky subject. There most certainly was and are denials of rights. The question is more, are they bad enough?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So to be called a revolution, there has to be a denial of rights? denial of rights is part of the definition of revolution?[/quote]
It is if you are citing to the DOI.
It’d have to be a pretty high bar, something far greater than losing an election in a republic.
The fact that it’s not in the constitution means nothing. Ninth and tenth amendments.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So to be called a revolution, there has to be a denial of rights? denial of rights is part of the definition of revolution?[/quote]
It is if you are citing to the DOI.
It’d have to be a pretty high bar, something far greater than losing an election in a republic.
[/quote]
Lots of people are denied rights every day.
Over taxation can be a denial of property rights. In fact any taxation is some level of violation.
Suspension of Habeas corpus. (along with many many violations during the war)
Abuse of the commerce clause.
Laws infringe on lots of rights in the constitution.
A tax and economic policy that overwhelmingly favors one side of the nation.
The fed clearly violates the 10th amendment all the time.
There are innocent people in jail and guilty ones on the street.
No system anywhere ever goes without violating rights, like I said, it’s just whether it’s significant enough.
[quote]byukid wrote:
The fact that it’s not in the constitution means nothing. Ninth and tenth amendments.[/quote]
Yeah, it kinda does. The Ninth Amendment doesn’t do anything except act as a bluwark to the argument that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive and cannot be read to allow for legislation outside of enumerated powers, and the Tenth Amendment is a truism that doesn’t answer the question.
Relying on the Tenth Amendment as the “basis” for secession is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
The fact that it’s not in the constitution means nothing. Ninth and tenth amendments.[/quote]
Yeah, it kinda does. The Ninth Amendment doesn’t do anything except act as a bluwark to the argument that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive and cannot be read to allow for legislation outside of enumerated powers, and the Tenth Amendment is a truism that doesn’t answer the question.
Relying on the Tenth Amendment as the “basis” for secession is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
[/quote]
So if one party violates a term of the contract, the other party is still bound by that contract?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
The fact that it’s not in the constitution means nothing. Ninth and tenth amendments.[/quote]
Yeah, it kinda does. The Ninth Amendment doesn’t do anything except act as a bluwark to the argument that the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive and cannot be read to allow for legislation outside of enumerated powers, and the Tenth Amendment is a truism that doesn’t answer the question.
Relying on the Tenth Amendment as the “basis” for secession is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
[/quote]
BUT why should states be bound to a document which none of their citizens helped create or voted on? It’s a type of slavery that exists from birth. The States have a right to dissolve their association with the federal government because there’s nothing saying that they can’t, and it’s a right of the sovereign states to do such.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Suspension of Habeas corpus. (along with many many violations during the war)
Abuse of the commerce clause.
Laws infringe on lots of rights in the constitution.
A tax and economic policy that overwhelmingly favors one side of the nation.
The fed clearly violates the 10th amendment all the time.
There are innocent people in jail and guilty ones on the street.
No system anywhere ever goes without violating rights, like I said, it’s just whether it’s significant enough.[/quote]
How many of these are “denials of rights” and how many are “political questions up for disagreement”?
Hell, I can claim my tax bracket is a “denial of my rights”, but the same claim could be made about any law someone doesn’t like. Quite obviously, the bar has to be pretty high and real “rights” need to be identified as being violated, not just political policy I happen to not like, in order to justify revolution.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So if one party violates a term of the contract, the other party is still bound by that contract?[/quote]
A. The constitution isn’t a pure contract
B. The answer depends on the contract
C. You can’t point to a violation of it, so the question is moot
[quote]byukid wrote:
BUT why should states be bound to a document which none of their citizens helped create or voted on? It’s a type of slavery that exists from birth. The States have a right to dissolve their association with the federal government because there’s nothing saying that they can’t, and it’s a right of the sovereign states to do such.[/quote]
If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read this month, it’s close.
So you mean to tell me that no newly born citizen that didn’t get a chance to vote on the Constitution isn’t bound to it?
So, this would also hold for state constitutions - I am not bound to the laws of my state because I couldn’t vote on the state constitution?
And, no, the states can’t unilaterally dissolve their association with the Union. And yes, there are things saying they can’t - just one example, the Supremacy Clause.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So if one party violates a term of the contract, the other party is still bound by that contract?[/quote]
A. The constitution isn’t a pure contract
B. The answer depends on the contract
C. You can’t point to a violation of it, so the question is moot
[/quote]
I’ve pointed to several. But lets see if I can find an official legal list.
Apparently the supreme court has determined the legislature has violated the constitution 382 times. And that’s just the legislative side of the federal government.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
BUT why should states be bound to a document which none of their citizens helped create or voted on? It’s a type of slavery that exists from birth. The States have a right to dissolve their association with the federal government because there’s nothing saying that they can’t, and it’s a right of the sovereign states to do such.[/quote]
If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read this month, it’s close.
So you mean to tell me that no newly born citizen that didn’t get a chance to vote on the Constitution isn’t bound to it?
So, this would also hold for state constitutions - I am not bound to the laws of my state because I couldn’t vote on the state constitution?
And, no, the states can’t unilaterally dissolve their association with the Union. And yes, there are things saying they can’t - just one example, the Supremacy Clause.
[/quote]
This is in a different context, but it makes my point better than I could:
http://blog.mises.org/16135/on-libya-congress-and-the-constitution
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
BUT why should states be bound to a document which none of their citizens helped create or voted on? It’s a type of slavery that exists from birth. The States have a right to dissolve their association with the federal government because there’s nothing saying that they can’t, and it’s a right of the sovereign states to do such.[/quote]
If this isn’t the dumbest thing I’ve read this month, it’s close.
So you mean to tell me that no newly born citizen that didn’t get a chance to vote on the Constitution isn’t bound to it?
So, this would also hold for state constitutions - I am not bound to the laws of my state because I couldn’t vote on the state constitution?
And, no, the states can’t unilaterally dissolve their association with the Union. And yes, there are things saying they can’t - just one example, the Supremacy Clause.
[/quote]
And the the 10th amendment is a clause on the supremacy claws.
Laws are only the supreme law of the land if they stay within the framework. Laws that violate the constitution violate the supremacy clause too.