Brexit in USA

[Pauls' Revere]

Here's hoping.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/brexit-could-it-happen-united-states

There is, however, another way of fighting back against the inexorable centralization of power by the Federal Government and Supreme Court, and that’s the solution being put forward by the Convention of States (conventionofstates.com). This much needed initiative seeks to confront the problem of the undemocratic usurpation of power by over-sized central government and to work actively towards its reversal. Its method is to return to the vision of the founding fathers who, having foreseen the problem, wrote Article V of the Constitution as a remedy for the disease of political centralization. This article of the Constitution states specifically that “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments [to the Constitution], which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states”.

The Convention of States is, therefore, working to get the legislatures of thirty-four of the states to call on Congress to call a convention, designed to change the constitution in ways which ensure the protection of the sovereign rights of member states and which limit the power of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court. As such, the Convention of States might be our best hope to right the sinking ship. It has the potential to correct or dramatically improve many of the abuses in our current system. Using specific legal rewording of some amendments, to ensure proper interpretation, and adding new amendments which protect states' rights from federal infringement, it might indeed be possible to change the current tyrannical course we are on.

[fr33]

http://rlv.zcache.com/texit_secede_and_be_free_bumper_sticker-raee32185726541d0995239a924b52caa_v9wht_8byvr_324. jpg

[TheTexan]

http://rlv.zcache.com/texit_secede_and_be_free_bumper_sticker-raee32185726541d0995239a924b52caa_v9wht_8byvr_324. jpg

Just be sure to get permission from the US government first

[Danke]

Unless Texas drops that incendiary "lone star" symbol, as if they are separate and special, I say don't let them secede, just kick them out! Maybe sell them to Mexico.

[puppetmaster]

Unless Texas drops that incendiary "lone star" symbol, as if they are separate and special, I say don't let them secede, just kick them out! Maybe sell them to Mexico. lol incendiary.

[Danke]

lol incendiary.

"Lone star" is a trigger.

[muh_roads]

Unless Texas drops that incendiary "lone star" symbol, as if they are separate and special, I say don't let them secede, just kick them out! Maybe sell them to Mexico.

The US needs Texas, not the other way around. It would be #10 GDP in the world if it broke off to become its own nation. They pay in 300B to the FRN scam more than they get back.

#triggered

[Anti Federalist]

The Convention of States is, therefore, working to get the legislatures of thirty-four of the states to call on Congress to call a convention, designed to change the constitution in ways which ensure the protection of the sovereign rights of member states and which limit the power of the Federal Government and the Supreme Court.

Yeah that may be the idea going in...but look what happened the first time.

[Zippyjuan]

Let's assume you get a Constitutional Convention called. Who will be on the panel writing changes to the current document? It won't be citizens. It won't be Ron Paul. Rand maybe since he is a Senator but he will be but one voice. It will be government officials. If you can't get Congress to pass small government legislation, what makes you think they will change the Constitution for smaller government and fewer powers for themselves? Then you also need two thirds of the states to agree on any proposed changes.

[muh_roads]

Just be sure to get permission from the US government first

I would like to see states just breaking off without permission to see what happens. In a world where the police state can be recorded and uploaded instantly for millions to see around the world, many in the US who might not live there but still have family in Texas wouldn't stand for seeing them attacked militarily. Civil War #2 would be so well documented this time around.

They would be forced to stand down and pussy out like the Bundy Ranch stand-off.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Let's assume you get a Constitutional Convention called.

This isn't directed at you zippy, but how reasonable is it to assume that a Constitutional Convention will be called for this matter? IMO they are just trying to provide another hamster wheel for the disenfranchised who realize no change is going to happen from the top so they don't do something intelligent like not seek approval from such a huge body of people.

[FindLiberty]

A Constitutional Convention could become a very bad thing,
once in session, the entire US Constitution is COMPLETELY up for grabs!

Don't go there unless you have high/total confidence and complete trust
in you elected representatives! (lol)

They could simplify and replace the whole thing along with those pesky
amendments, all boiled down to a single paragraph that reads:


"Your government knows best, just shut up and take it without complaining.
Do exactly what we say. Pay your taxes/fees/fines, or die right where you
stand/sit/grovel. As for the question of rights, you've got none. Now, don't
say another word! Authorities will tell you what to do and where to go, etc."

[Zippyjuan]

I would like to see states just breaking off without permission to see what happens. In a world where the police state can be recorded and uploaded instantly for millions to see around the world, many in the US who might not live there but still have family in Texas wouldn't stand for seeing them attacked militarily. Civil War #2 would be so well documented this time around.

They would be forced to stand down and pussy out like the Bundy Ranch stand-off.

Is secession legal? Law does not seem to allow it but if a state does secede US laws would not longer apply to it. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/


Can a state legally secede from the Union? Many, including Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, suggest no. In a 2006 letter, available here, Scalia argued that a the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”

Scalia is not the first Supreme Court justice to establish this position. In the case of Texas v. White in 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that, “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 majority opinion struck down the Texas Ordinance of Secession, calling it “null,” and crafted a decision that rendered all acts of secession illegal according to the “perpetual union” of both the Articles of Confederation and subsequent Constitution for the United States. Chase did leave an opening, “revolution or the consent of the States,” but without either, secession could never be considered a legal act.

The arguments against legal secession are generally based on both a historical concept of the Union and the language of the Constitution itself. In the Texas v. White decision, Chase began his legal challenge to secession with a historical discussion of the Union. He suggested that the Union predated the states and grew from a common kindred spirit during the years leading to the American War for Independence. This “one people” mentality was best articulated by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Story, who channeled John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton, reasoned that the Constitution was framed and ratified by the people at large, not the people of an individual state and thus held the same legal position of a state itself formed from many counties. “The constitution of a confederated republic, that is, of a national republic, formed of several states, is, or at least may be, not less an irrevocable form of government, than the constitution of a state formed and ratified by the aggregate of the several counties of the state.” In one sentence, Story reduced the states to the status of a county, shire, or province, and this general argument was used as a hammer both during Reconstruction and after against the sovereignty of the states.

Story additionally concluded, as did Chase in 1869, that the term “perpetual” found in the Articles of Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble. Chase surmised that the Constitution simply made the Union “more perfect” while Story suggested that the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation but did not change the permanent and “perpetual” nature of the Union. Story defended his position with the “Supremacy Clause” found in Article VI, which states that all laws or treaties made “in pursuance of the Constitution” were the “supreme law of the land,” and he pointed to the letter sent by the Philadelphia Convention accompanying the Constitution to the state ratifying conventions that the Constitution aimed at a “consolidation of the Union.” Hence, to Story and Chase, the Union continued to exist in an altered—i.e. consolidated—form and could not be dissolved.

Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position by declaring the seceding states were in “rebellion” and therefore still members of the Union. The Constitution, then, was still legally enforceable in those states, including Article I, Section 10.

Finally, some will concede that the original thirteen states may have an argument for secession due to the Declaration of Independence and Thomas Jefferson’s language establishing thirteen “free and independent states.” But the other thirty-seven, formed at least in part through the common territory of the United States, have no claim to secession. They were not states until Congress granted them statehood and consequently never constituted a sovereign legal entity, Texas and Hawaii to the contrary (though even Chase suggested that Texas lost its sovereignty when it joined the Union in 1845).

These arguments seem like a fairly strong case against secession. Three Supreme Court justices, one famous president, a bloody war, and the language of a modern pledge of allegiance offer conclusive proof that secession, while an entertaining philosophical exercise, has no legal basis. Their various opinions and conclusions, however, all have gaping holes.

Scalia’s positions are the most vapid. Secession, as accomplished by the Southern states in 1860 and 1861 and as discussed by the North at the Hartford Convention in 1815, is an independent act by the people of the states, and accomplished in the same fashion as the several conventions that occurred throughout early American history. The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body. This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force—the States have separated and resumed their independent status—then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the “legality” of the move.

More arguments at link.

[AZJoe]

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."


Secession is America's oldest tradition:

http://wredlich.com/ny/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/secession-day.jpg

[AZJoe]

If at first you don't Secede ....
. . . . . . . We'll then try, try again.

[Danke]

If a group cannot leave another group...is that not tyranny?

[Pericles]

http://rlv.zcache.com/texit_secede_and_be_free_bumper_sticker-raee32185726541d0995239a924b52caa_v9wht_8byvr_324. jpg


That

[jllundqu]

Boobus doesn't care about Freedom... they care about tribalism and cradle to grave security.

I would hope to god Texas would have the balls to try, but if you think they will... you're on better drugs than me!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbD3_cA2Oo

[acptulsa]

The lesson of Brexit is not that we need more amendments. The lesson of Brexit is we need to get back to using the amendments we already have.

Consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which reserve all powers not directly applicable to international trade and the common defense to the individual states. The U.S. became more powerful than Europe because of free trade within the states, so the E.U. was eventually created to turn Europe into a free trade zone. Both the U.S. and the E.U. were proving the folly of centralized control of many states, in those days, by thriving while the Soviet Union failed miserably. The lesson of Brexit is that Europe went wrong when it decided to micromismanage everything in Europe from Brussels, and we don't have to give up our advantages or amend the Constitution to apply the lessons learned from that. All we have to do is install people in Washington who will respect and obey the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and stop trying to micromismanage this nation from Washington.

[Pericles]

"Lone star" is a trigger.

I detected a microaggression there. Now I'm going to have to crawl off to my safe state in order to feel better.

[Ender]

A Constitutional Convention could become a very bad thing,
once in session, the entire US Constitution is COMPLETELY up for grabs!

Don't go there unless you have high/total confidence and complete trust
in you elected representatives! (lol)

They could simplify and replace the whole thing along with those pesky
amendments, all boiled down to a single paragraph that reads:






^^THIS^^

[Ender]

Unless Texas drops that incendiary "lone star" symbol, as if they are separate and special, I say don't let them secede, just kick them out! Maybe sell them to Mexico.

They are special. I believe they are the only state in the US that is officially their own Republic.