State's Secession is a Viral Meme. You can't leave!

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding state secession. The idea of it was accepted as a right of any member state, and evidence of this can be found in the transcripts and records of the Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island ratification debates. The right to secede was one of the conditions demanded by the three aforementioned states in order for them to agree to the ratification of the Constitution. Another place to look is the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist #45, which discusses federal power and state power. The intent of the founders in regards to this topic is important because, after all, they wrote the constitution, and they explain their thoughts in great detail and their intent and meaning in the Federalist Papers.

Thomas Jefferson was quoted on this topic.. “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

Link

Well if enough people get behind this movement it could jump start the required process.

reply to post by Druid42

Refreshing what was said earlier, the proper method would be for a state's legislature to draft up secession paperwork, and have it signed by the governor of that state, then as a group, the governors would present their suit to the Supreme Court, in a law suit. The states would have to sue the United States government for their right to secede. It'd be the biggest legal mess of all times.

A state does not need federal permission to secede! Not by the courts or the president. All they have to do is decide by legislature and referendum and then do it. There is nothing in the constitution forbidding a state from seceding or authorizing the federal government to prevent secession. The civil war was illegal! No founder would have ever signed on to the constitution if there was such a provision.

Having said that no state has the cahones to try it. It is a small faction within the states who desire it. Personally I see no need for secession all the states need to do is exercise their sovereignty and constrain federal agents from violating the rights of their citizens. But none have the cahones to do that either despite the rash of 10th Amendment resolutions a few years ago among several states including mine... They are all bought off (at least their governments) by federal bribe monies...

reply to post by Druid42


So long as you can be convinced to behave by having your toys taken away...you will behave and there will be no change...

At some point that child grows up though and says...."f*** these toys you control me with mom and dad....I'm moving out and i'll get my own damn toys"...

The common american really isn't any different than a 2 year old...we might grow up one day and secede...erm I mean move out...

That would mean we would have to pay our own bills though....don't know if Mericans are up to it though.

Please.. every registered Republican will be on the no-fly list before you know it. What's left to lose?

Looking at the individual petitions I am seeing that the majority of the signers are NOT from the state which is the subject of the petition. Some were even started by someone outside of the state.

We the People

Because of this I really do not see these petitions going anywhere other than the trash bin.

I believe this is what prompted this protest.





Our President took the highly populated areas only, which was all he really needed, but you all tell me, are there more people on assistance in the blue counties or in the red counties?

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
]I honestly don't know if you are being obtuse or if you really don't understand. The law is irrelevant here. I am pretty sure that the revolutionary war was "against the law". When I joined the military, my oath was to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. What the current regime and the previous regime have done to the Constitution is unacceptable. There comes a time when in the course of events we must decide to stand for our principles or to lie down and accept what is being done. The political process has been proven too corrupt and we can no longer rely upon it to make our will known. Peaceful secession is the last option before violent revolution is all that remains. Nowhere in the Constitution does the document state that the voluntary association of the states is "permanent" and unalterable. The nation is divided between 2 paradigms that cannot long peacefully coexist. Violence is already being used and being threatened in many more cases against those who no longer accept the dictates of the regime. Violence is already being done, the question is will we continue to permit it, or will we stand up before it is too late?

Violence seams to be tho only answer these days.
To many times we have seen peaceful protests happen that just end up either laughed at , ignored , or just plane shut down.

I prefer a peaceful way of doing things, but then a quote keeps coming back
that seems more true everyday.

Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention --- John Doe " Se7en "

It is amazing how Ohio still won as democrats with that many red counties.That right there tells you this politcal system is failing and is being abused.

reply to post by Druid42


So we would have to build a border around Texa?. What would they do if Mexico attacked? Doesn't sound like a smart move. Food would have to be imported.

reply to post by Druid42


People shouldn't be afraid of their governments to the point of allowing it to dictate their free speech and basic rights to such a degree. Once you are, you've already given up on being American as far as I'm concerned.

Sign if you feel it's the right thing to do. That's the advice that should be given to people. Not refrain from it because of fear....

Liberty or death.

I don't think this is anything more than people who are upset with the elections being resentful.

Like the threats of riots. It is all hype. People are petty and lame when they have no tolerance for others.

These people initiating these things are our Thomas Jeffersons, Paul Reveres and John Handcocks. Their actions now are their muskets. When you are speaking out against them and their actions, you are speaking out against our ancestors who won us our freedoms! You are the British spies who are trying to quell a rebellion and maintain the status quo!

It is they who are trying to break our chains of bondage and give us all the chance to remain united. The way the corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is set up leaves few venues for action. This move is in their face and easily seen by the entire nation. Better to die free than live on your knees!

First, I have to ask why everyone is assuming violence. Looking back at the "Arab Spring", Obama was encouraging the leaders of those nations to step down peacefully to give the people what they wanted. To not be a hypocrite, he would need to give these petitions the chance they're asking for.

Second, A comment was made earlier about "two presidents". I don't think it would be two, but many. In most cases, the governors would take over as commander in chief of these states. Basially, it would be a status quo, with a few less politicians.

Third, regardless of what anyone thinks, most likely this is no more than an inventive way to show dissatisfaction with our current government which caught on quick. People are tired of their complaints about a broken government falling on deaf ears, so they find a creative way to get attention. Guess what, it worked, it's even caught the attention of ATS.

reply to post by ajay59


face can't handle my palm....

The American revolution was not fought because "freedom fighters" wanted to liberate their people. It was a power struggle between Europe's elite.

Some wanted to be kings of the new lands, instead of princes in Europe. Some outright wanted to replace their family as rulers back home and just killed their loosely related family for a throne like in France.
They used a different dynamic to achieve it. Instead of the played out rule of divine kingship, they used the model of Rome's republic that allowed for the same corruption without the threat and focus by the plebe


That is why the articles of confederation were made to fail for economic factors, the way only master bankers could, and consequently the US constitution was written behind closed doors by the elite that were in the same power and position after the revolution as they were before.

There was even a second revolution that was quelled when this was all figured out and a large army of militia men were turned back from the capital.

History teaches us to just live our lives as best we can or we run the risk of being pawns in some one else's games.

All that rhetoric of muskets and revolution is about as useful as taking a gun to cop, it is insane and backwards.

If you want to change the country. Get educated, convince people with reason, and get into politics when you have enough popular support. The existing system is not without reform, but those that reform it are not you so you think it is being done to hurt you. Maybe, but unless you get really involved in politics and governance, and motivate people as was done in democracies throughout history, you are just talking about using violence to effect change.

In other words, you are promoting US on US violence, and frankly I think you are sitting in Beijing or Korea or other like place trying to create chaos in the US.


if you are an American, then I fail to see how you think what you propose is better than what we got now. The strongest is never keen on listening to those he rules. Look at any example of a violent revolution.

reply to post by manykapao


Pardon me. I was not aware that you were there to witness the birth of our nation. Do tell us more about our history. These people not only got the attention of the PTB but the masses as well and that is a start. Why do you try to convince the people to stand down? Because you are happy with being a debt slave does not mean we all are. There does not have to be division between the American people. If you refuse to stand and fight your jailers, at least step aside and let real patriots win your freedom for you.

reply to post by ajay59


well no one here was alive was then!

that is why we have a plethora of history books, standard edition for schooling, and others by researchers and authors who deemed it fit to write the real accounts of history. The Spanish conquered the American empires of the south and geared our perception of their exploits by forcing the 2 or 3 texts they wrote about it as the only official story. Thankfully there were literate people who wrote and documented the past more honestly and now if you really want to you can read about any subject in its truth, if you look. I happen to LOVE history.

As far as being a debt salve, I am not a willing participant.

Come up with a solution and convince people of it. Hell I am all ears. Telling us to simply split our country apart is not exactly a better situation since no one is mentioning how to ensure the same things don't happen again with smaller mini states.

I mean, what is the plan?

Break up the union, and then what? Is that plan not applicable to the whole union? At what point does your plan call for dissolving what unity we do have?

Its interesting...if you read the words in the OP from Obama's perspective....That is exactly what he and his followers are doing.

Originally posted by F4guy
It qill never happen. One example will show why. Take Texas for one example, or as some might plead, "Please take Texas." As of 2006, there were 253,000 federal employees in Texas. Dump these people in the unemployment pool there and eliminate the sales taxes paid by these people and you have a wrecked economy, even without considering the devastating impact of losing all military spending in the state.
Waco and Killeen, TX would wither away and die. Ft Hood pumps $9.3 Billion into the local economy. And 24,600 houses would be dumped on the local economy.
And you get similar numbers from Fort Bliss (El Paso) and Ft. Sam Houston (San Antonio) and NAS Corpus Christi, and Randolph, Laughlin, Dyess, Goodfellow, Lackland and Sheppard Air Force Bases. When Bergstrom AFB was closed in 1993, it pounded the Austin area.
They really should be careful of what they ask for.

It is called growing pains, but as a latest poll suggests 57% to 38% Texas would take the hard times to be free. We have crossed the threshhold on freedom in the 70's and now we are at a crossroads and have to decide either path is going to be hard and ends in certain destruction. The only question is do you want your children to grow up free?

Originally posted by RedmoonMWC
Looking at the individual petitions I am seeing that the majority of the signers are NOT from the state which is the subject of the petition. Some were even started by someone outside of the state.

We the People

Because of this I really do not see these petitions going anywhere other than the trash bin.

I believe this is what prompted this protest.

Our President took the highly populated areas only, which was all he really needed, but you all tell me, are there more people on assistance in the blue counties or in the red counties?

When I see that map the blue areas remind me of necrotizing fasciitis ( flesh eating bacteria ). Either that or the spread of a zombie virus..

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
There is nothing in the Constitution regarding state secession. The idea of it was accepted as a right of any member state, and evidence of this can be found in the transcripts and records of the Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island ratification debates. The right to secede was one of the conditions demanded by the three aforementioned states in order for them to agree to the ratification of the Constitution. Another place to look is the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist #45, which discusses federal power and state power. The intent of the founders in regards to this topic is important because, after all, they wrote the constitution, and they explain their thoughts in great detail and their intent and meaning in the Federalist Papers.

Thomas Jefferson was quoted on this topic.. “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what “the people” meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.” In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

Link

This is why they call us the "UNITED" States and not the States! The act of State hood is a voluntary union of States especially in the beginning. This voluntary union could be dissolved by the individual states in needed as in the case between Vermont and New Hamshire, or when Conneticutt succeed during the War of 1812 cause they did not like La. so they refused to send troops. This is precedence set for the War of Northern Aggression (aka civil war). Law is set on precedence so law says states can succeed from the union.