Texit

[jamil]

History.

I learned on INGO today that the constitution isn't the basis of our laws. History is.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

History.

I just don't . . .

Ok, what in history are you referencing? Are you referencing something prior to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee?

The Constitution does not allow the states to be sovereign.

Please explain.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Lex Concord]

Must be referring to the time spent under the Articles of Confederation.

Even then, the retained sovereignty, as referenced therein, was not complete.

 

[snowwalker]

I just don't . . .

Ok, what in history are you referencing? Are you referencing something prior to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee?

The Constitution does not allow the states to be sovereign.

Please explain.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america-html

I wonder if some of you believe the fallacy that this country is a democracy too? We are a republic.

 

[jamil]

Must be referring to the time spent under the Articles of Confederation.

Even then, the retained sovereignty, as referenced therein, was not complete.

No, cant be that. Lincoln wasn't arround then. Well, on the other hand Lincoln wasn't around for the 14th amendment either.

 

[jamil]

https://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america-html

I wonder if some of you believe the fallacy that this country is a democracy too? We are a republic.

How about this. Can we agree that Lincoln didn't posthumously "put in" the 14th amendment? Also, can you define what you mean by sovereignty?

 

[JTScribe]

See:

https://www.amazon.com/State-Disobe...74501&sr=1-1&keywords=a+state+of+disobedience

and

https://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Las...466974523&sr=1-1&keywords=libertys+last+stand

for semi-plausible scenarios.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

https://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america-html

I just cited Martin and in return I get some L. Neil Smith pablum?

States are not sovereign. The Constitution spells out what the states cannot do in Article I, §10--coin money, ex post facto laws, enter into treaties, grant titles of nobility, not have a republican form of government, inter alia. This by definition does not bestow sovereignty.

I wonder if some of you believe the fallacy that this country is a democracy too? We are a republic.

I am unaware that anyone at INGO believes the USA is a democracy, but how is that relevant to your claim that states are sovereign?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Must be referring to the time spent under the Articles of Confederation.

Yes, I am thinking Gallatin Divergence is where he is getting this political theory.

 

[jamil]

I just cited Martin and in return I get some L. Neil Smith pablum?

States are not sovereign. The Constitution spells out what the states cannot do in Article I, §10--coin money, ex post facto laws, enter into treaties, grant titles of nobility, not have a republican form of government, inter alia. This by definition does not bestow sovereignty.



I am unaware that anyone at INGO believes the USA is a democracy, but how is that relevant to your claim that states are sovereign?

Well, there was that one guy but I think he got banned.

 

[BADWOLF]

I guess if Texas wants to be reabsorbed by Mexico, and be ruled by drug cartels, without any defensive help from the US, thats their choice.

Wow really Texas became a state of the US after leaving mexico..... Where do I get a copy of your history book? I was taught that Texas for a few years was an independent nation " The Republic of Texas " I guess I need to find my US history teacher and set him straight.

 

[HoughMade]

Treason- it's what's for dinner.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Wow really Texas became a state of the US after leaving mexico

Correct.

I was taught that Texas for a few years was an independent nation " The Republic of Texas " I guess I need to find my US history teacher and set him straight.

For a few years. But from 1836 on Texas politicians wanted statehood, which was complicated in D.C. by the Free/Slave divide.

The turbos for statehood kicked in by 1842 and the reconquista of Saint Tony's and the Dawson Massacre.

 

[BADWOLF]

Correct.



For a few years. But from 1836 on Texas politicians wanted statehood, which was complicated in D.C. by the Free/Slave divide.

The turbos for statehood kicked in by 1842 and the reconquista of Saint Tony's and the Dawson Massacre.

So for you to say that the second quote is "correct" ( for a few years). Then the first quote can not be "correct" as well. Can't have your cake and eat it to. And to correct myself I meant Texas becoming a state immediately after freeing itself from Mexico.

 

[rob63]

Treason- it's what's for dinner.

Best not be any noodles in the chili either, that will really get 'em riled up.

 

[BADWOLF]

If a territory can join the US by agreeing to the rules set fourth to be a state. Then say 100 years later decide things are getting a little bit out of hand and want out and don't like the rules governing states rights they can leave just the way they came in..... Of their own FREE will.

 

[Kurr]

13 States would disagree that it can't be done.

 

[HoughMade]

If a territory can join the US by agreeing to the rules set fourth to be a state. Then say 100 years later decide things are getting a little bit out of hand and want out and don't like the rules governing states rights they can leave just the way they came in..... Of their own FREE will.

Here we go again....

Show me that in the Constitution. We live is a nation governed by laws...which are, conveniently, written down.

I've said it before, I'll say it again- the only arguably legal way for a state to leave the union is by the same process as it joined, consent of both the state legislature and Congress....but that's not at all clear. What is clear is that there is no legal way for a state to leave the union of its own accord.

 

[BADWOLF]

Here we go again....

Show me that in the Constitution. We live is a nation governed by laws...which are, conveniently, written down.

I've said it before, I'll say it again- the only arguably legal way for a state to leave the union is by the same process as it joined, consent of both the state legislature and Congress....but that's not at all clear. What is clear is that there is no legal way for a state to leave the union of its own accord.

I said "they can leave just the way they came in" with out threats or overt or covert coersion from the federal gov.