Can a State legally leave the Union?

Can a State legally leave the Union?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
abcnews.go.com/International/texas-california-separatists-attend-pro-kremlin-conference/story?id=42395066
infrastructurereportcard.org/
youtu.be/S92fTz_-kQE?t=1m47s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>one nation, indivisible

The answer is in the Declaration of Independence.

That is not the Constitution

Neither is any mention of secession

10th amendment

Best Carolina says "yes"

Also fuck Bill Sherman

no.
everything you got, a part of that came from the protection of the US milatray, and our overseas connections. you can't take all the bengits of living in a world power than just leave

>you can't take all the bengits of living in a world power than just leave
Why not?
Also I never even asked the question if America could invade the newly created country
Just if they could legally leave

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

Right from the Declaration of Independence.

But what about SHaggy?
>oh Carolinaaa

perpetual union
t. Supreme Court

>perpetual union
Not actually in the Constitution

Only if you have more guns than the feds
And the feds have a fuckton of guns

Once it finally happens, it'll just be a ploy for globalism.
Mexico USA and Canada probably get connected Infinite Jest style, and divided into just a few provinces/territories

see
I am just asking about the legality of it
Not if the US could invade the new country

Where's that "former red team planner" redpill when ya need it?

no
you need to kill your way through

Here you go friend :^)

Yes that's the one. Also here's one on how pathetically vulnerable The Grid is

yes

yeah, but it was in the Articles, and by some leap of logic it wasn't replaced by the Constitution but made the union more perfect.

ah it's bullshit, but really Secession doesn't need to be in any of these documents you're only ever going to escape by using force.

>from sea to shining sea

By this logic, we shouldnt have the right to an attorney or our Miranda rights given to us, as they're not 'in' the Constitution. In terms of the 10th Amendment, until further notice, the right to secede is not covered by it. It is indeed a perpetual union, like it or not.
Also
>balkanizing yourself into an even greater demographics disparity
>implying the exact same outcome wouldnt occur
Yeah,occupation is a bitch, but if you think any form of Neo-Confederacy wouldnt collapse economically as much as it did in the Civil War, youre a fucking idiot. The South still hasnt recovered from it but nah, a Confederate state will surely be able to work and not end up a clusterfuck politcally and economically like it did last time. Not to mention you dont have any sort of Stonewall Jackson or Lee this time. The average person in America doesnt primarily identify with their state anymore.
You can go on all you want about how shitty the grid is, and how an occupation would be an absolute nightmare, but if you're acting as if a new Confederate state would work, or be legal, you've got your nostalgia blinders on too hard

>Yankee scum go home
>Im gonna post some insight that was purely about a revolution straight down political ideologies in which itd be right-wing vs left-wing, but itll totally apply to the demographically-hammered, economically-disadvantaged South if it causes a Civil War for pure regionalism that isnt nearly a factor in the politics in the average American doesnt give a shit about anymore beyond banter

>yeah, but it was in the Articles
So are the Articles of Confederation now the highest law of the land and not the constitution
>you're only ever going to escape by using force.
Would be much harder to get political support for a war invading a foreign country

>By this logic, we shouldnt have the right to an attorney or our Miranda rights given to us, as they're not 'in' the Constitution.
Correct
> In terms of the 10th Amendment, until further notice, the right to secede is not covered by it.
everything not laid out in the constitution is covered by it

When the confederacy seceded, Lincoln declared it unconstitutional. That's why the Civil War happened. If any state tried to secede, the government could start a second Civil war, but they wont b/c of

>thinking some worthless cult piece written by a socialist holds any legal water
>thinking some sculpture sent to us by a gay french man holds any legal water

Exactly. Which is why it's not forbidden.

Do you understand how the Constitution works?

yes, if any of the clauses of the trust indenture are violated the trust is dissolved

apparently not

No. Texas v White.
That said, when shtf I doubt a Supreme Court decision from 150 years ago will matter.
The Declaration of Independence was, by nature, illegal.

Also fuck recreating the Confederacy. North Carolina wants nothing to do with the niggers of the south. We'll go our own way.

>muh precedent
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

>t. Supreme Court stacked with Lincoln appointees during a time when several states did not have a presence in the Senate to block these appointments because they seceded

Do you really not see how thoroughly corrupt everything Lincoln did was? The man was a murderous tyrant.

look this up, the only state that can is texas, that was part of it joining the union in the first place.

that if the state of texas held a vote and a majority of the people vote to leave it can do so with out any issues. that why texas has its own powergrid sepret from the rest of the country.

i love seeing this cali-exit stuff because it will be a sure fire way to uncuck the cucked state of commieforina.

army gon roll in and put things right

>legally
Irrelevant. Might makes right.

Radical Republicans actually wanted Texas v White to go the other way

Yes, if the Constitution is amended to allow it.

Might makes right is view on morality
When governments no longer follow their own laws they lose legitimacy and collapse

Why does the constitution forbid it now?

Maybe. But they were still Lincoln appointments made without the full body of the Senate present to confirm them accordingly. It would be as if Obama had appointed several SCOTUS justices with a 1/3rd of the Senate absent from the confirmation process.

This is a constitutional decision we're bound to respect? I don't believe so. I think it's an asterix.

Yes, but the US is likewise legally allowed to defend it's territory from what would effectively be an insurrection. Well... I don't know if they are legally allowed to or not but you can bet they will intervene and nobody will stop them. For better or worse it's highly unlikely that a state would be allowed to exit the union without fighting their way out. Obviously that probably won't work.

>I can just ignore the Supreme Court because I dont like the appointees
I mean dont get me wrong, the political bias is obvious, but you cant just ignore legal decisions because of it. Rhetorically, yes; legally, no
I'm not seeing Texas v. White there, so all the more still, Texas v. White and its ruling is still the precedent. You can masturbate all you want about it being overruled, but I highly doubt in any future lifetime we'll see a Supreme Court decision involving the secession of a US state in so that it would affect the ruling that states cant secede from the Union

>lose legitimacy and collapse
In which case it was because the government was not mighty enough to justify its existence.

>made without the full body of the Senate present to confirm them accordingly.
Which ironically would not be a problem had they ruled the other way in Texas v White

the supreme court has consistently ruled that under the current Constitution states cannot leave

And btw, Texas v. White does not say secession is unconstitutional, it says unilateral secession is unconstitutional. Presumably Congress can okay secession, as Texas v. White does not forbid that.

>I'm not seeing Texas v. White there, so all the more still, Texas v. White and its ruling is still the precedent.
Precedent is a joke because the even the Supreme Court does not respect it

NO REASON THE STATES SHOULD STAY TOGETHER
EVER

It's not about not liking the appointees, it's about believing them to not be valid appointees in the first place, because they did not get properly confirmed by the Senate.

Lincoln threw out the Constitution whenever it obstructed his plans. He did this regularly. His SCOTUS appointments are just one more example of this. Had he went about it the right way, he would have waited for the war to end to make any appointments. There is nothing in the Constitution that says SCOTUS vacancies must be filled immediately.

They also ruled you cant grow your own wheat and that the Japanese internment was legal

Should FDRs appointees be valid since he threatened to stack it?

Really doesn't matter, toilet paper has no hold on the 9 robed figures that rule us.

no sources stated in the post?

gtfo

No, it's literally illegal

I don't think it's so much forbidden as there exists no legal process to go about doing it.

>let me just link to this buzzfeed article about how to fight a tyrannical government
stupid bong

I'm no fan of FDR, but he didn't stack it, he just threatened to. And half of the country was not in rebellion and absent from the Senate, either.

I mean, fucking Lincoln got re-elected in an election where half of the country didn't even vote. And somehow we judge this as valid, despite the fact that we're told the CSA was never really the CSA and was always part of the USA, because they weren't allowed to secede.

That entire episode of our history was a glitch, because of one man who was a maniacal tyrant that just did whatever the hell he wanted.

Can you give a source? A quick google returned nothing.

Yes, and No. Its a somewhat complex issue here in the states. Though many states have Secession clauses in their constitutions. It even goes further in out own constitution by saying "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

On the other side you have Supreme Court rulings such as Texas Vs White:

"Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States."
Do note that this case took place in 1869, four years after the civil war.

Government declares you can't leave the government whodathunkit?

Do you have any more of these civil war/revolution fighting redpills user? They're great

its stated shit that's not even backed up

- "estimated desertion rate in case of a civil war is 65% in case of a left win president. 50% of that would be assumed to immediately betray the president..." "Additionmally, there is an assumed 25-50% desertion or outright betrayal rate in three letter government agencies"

>> 4 - "Russia has already stated they would back any texas seperation movement"

>> 6 - "Logistics and infrastructure in the US are crumbling and failing.

And more unfounded claims.

Go to You'll love it there.

They aren't made for you, bong. You guys can't even handle steak knives over there.

>Best Carolina
Maybe if you like trannies in your bathrooms and potholes in your roads. NC is true Carolina

abcnews.go.com/International/texas-california-separatists-attend-pro-kremlin-conference/story?id=42395066

infrastructurereportcard.org/

Shut up and tend to your dead you stupid bong

>Yes and no

Choose one faggot, the answer is no. It's illegal for a state to secede, and if it does, it will be met with a military reaction. Washington will not allow any state to secede, that is the reality.

no fgt, the constitution is the binding contract of all the states.

still, haven't provided sources

go get some then you'll have an actual case you autistic sheep

So what happens when the federal government breaks its end of the contract? In an actual contract, if one party breaches, the contract can be voided by the other party. In your version of a contract, one party can violate its terms on a regular basis and the other party can't do shit about it. Seems fair.

No

Yes.

It should be the duty of every Southerner to do his part to smash the Federal parasite.

I don't even care about a secession, but I will lay some truths down:
>most people in urban areas in the south are filthy yanks or first generation southerners
>most people in America's military come from the southeast because the rest of the country is cucked
>A good portion of military would be all over a southern secession

This time, we leave no one in Fort Sumter alive

And there aren't going to be any you fuckwit.
Like I said this shit is over your head. Go back to sipping tea you goddamn limey.

the South went bankrupt during the war because their ports were blockaded for 5 years and they were in total war with a larger, more powerful country. Not because they can't work, lmao.

Yes a state can leave but first congress would hacmve to ratify the constitution by making an amendmend saying a state has the right to leave and the president would have to choose not to veto it. So yes it is possible because ammendments can allow it

Most of their best toys are sitting in other countries and it would take forever to ship all that shit back, especially if the planes carrying them get shot down with Stinger Missiles taken from a dilapidated National Guard armory or the ships contracted to ship it back in bulk mysteriously sink in the harbor...

Also the state of the US Military post-2000 is absolutely abysmal once you start looking into the corruption, fall in standards, and general collapse of morale.

It makes the Union Army of the 1860s, which was staffed by 90 day volunteers off the street for the first year look good by comparison.

funny how you resort to insults when you're proven wrong. at least i can actually provide evidence to disprove my claim. you're just as bad as the fucking leftards "BUT MAH FEELS" "BUT MAH PICTURES" piss off you cousin fucker and go think about how to provide proof.

No, we had a fucking war about it. Too bad niggers think it was about them.

disprove your claim*

Actually, I think Texas retained that right.

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)
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.

>what is the 2nd amendment

>Can a State legally leave the Union?
I have no idea. I'm English and have to go to Scotland tomorrow. It's a stone's throw away. It's for work purposes. Literally an hour and a half by train; the border is within breathing distance. And I have to visit family.

As I understand, you Americans have laws based upon English Common Law; the right to a trial of 12 peers, habeas corpus, and other things, like representaion in a court. For a state to leave the United States would require a new law.
The only states that I can think would leave are Texas and California. Maybe Florida.

When I go to USA, I go to visit a friend in Montana. It's lovely there.
My country is a constitutional monarchy. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. is sovereign.
I think it's same for Aussies, Kiwis and Canadians.

I think your confused. You think were having an argument.
You can clearly see the source, it's Sup Forums it some user that posted it. Believe it, or don't. I posted it at someone elses request.

Do you not understand the nature of an ANONYMOUS image board little redditor?

anymore?

you're parading it as if it is fact

We don't really need to leave the union but I'd like to rename Oklahoma to 'wild indian country' on the maps again and take everything but the peace pipe off our flag.

Short answer, yes. If your question was, "Is it possible...," then more like no.

see
>Where's that "former red team planner" redpill when ya need it?
I really do think you have autism.

As someone who works in military research, you are clueless. The tech we have today makes anything pre-2001 look like child's play. Sure there's corruption, but the Feds put enough money in for there to be substantial development and progress as well.

> scour the internet to find a picture of a fat dude to help make point.

Try harder.

>The only states that I can think would leave are Texas and California

I think any of the original Thirteen should have the right to leave as they never had the Feds involved with their settling as the other non-independent territories did. The Confederacy contained, what, four of the original states?

Secession = illegal
Revolution = secession= legal

That's how the south justified it atleast

youtu.be/S92fTz_-kQE?t=1m47s

Scalia said no. I suppose you could try, but that didn't work out so well last time.

It would be extremely painful.

>F-35s

Literally the trillion dollar money drain

>M16 replacement

40 years and still hasn't gotten anywhere

>M320 GL

Overpriced garbage H&K are ripping us off for, also has serious reliability/weight problems

>ACUs/MCCUUs/NWUs/ABUs

All garbage of such low quality that it makes Nazi Germany's winter gear look decent by comparison and it puts addition stress on the supply chain. Why anyone saw it as remotely necessary to replace the BDU is beyond me

>muh dragonskin armor body armor/helmets

They literally stick paper mache in some of that shit because you keep buying them from companies who do manufacturing with prison labor

>muh Gerald R. Ford class

Years behind schedule and billions overbudget

>Zummwalt-class destroyers

Also years behind schedule, billions overbudget, and the primary weapons system DOESN'T EVEN FUCKING WORK

>muh Air Force

Half the planes are falling apart because they're too busy wasting money designing the new ones rather than ordering more of the existing design we already know works

>muh MOABs/Smart Bombs

Suitable in very limited circumstances. Also cost a fortune to produce.

>MUH NANOSUIT SOLDIERS

Will not be feasible before the end of this century, also a potential walking death trap if one component fries

>muh google glass computer glasses

lol have fun when you get mud all over that

>muh drones

Let's focus on making sure they can't be hacked (*cough* RQ-170) before we replace all our planes with them.

And let's not kid ourselves here, could we really afford all these fucking retard pet projects if we were fighting a war for our very national survival? I'm guessing no. But the Pentagon is so infested with whores to contractors that they'd stonewall any attempt to cut funding for their pet project, which would basically result in the US Military squandering its resources on unnecessary crap while the regular army crumbles, exactly what happened to the Third Reich.