The states created the Union and before ratifying the Constitution they demanded a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution.
They wanted to be absolutely certain that the newly formed government to be the servant of the people and the states.
It was well understood that any power or authority not specifically granted to the National government was retained to the states and the people. Since the right of secession is not mention in the Constitution, it is one of the rights retained by the states.
The thirteen colonies seceded from the British Empire and set a precedence. When in the opinion of the people of a given state feel the National government has violated the terms of the Constitution they have a right to sever the connection.
In the pyramid of political power, God created man and was the supreme sovereign, Man created the states, and the states created the Union. The central government was the low man on the totem pole. The right of secession is like an insurance policy against governmental tyranny.
Personally, I am not in favor of states seceding from the Union, but I am in favor of strict enforcement of the Constitution. I believe that the Constitution delegated limited powers to the National government were few and well defined while the powers retained by the states were nearly limitless.
By accepting the notion that in the Constitution there are implied powers you give the government the authority to expand their powers beyond what was intended. The powers of the National government can only be changed thought the amendment process outlined in Article V.
Today the Constitution is amended every time an unconstitutional law is passed, an executive order is writing or whenever the Supreme Court misinterprets the Constitution. Any amendment proposed to the states for ratification must be approved by two thirds of the members of the House and Senate and must be ratified by three fourths of the states.
Making positive changes in the Constitution is nearly impossible because getting two thirds of the member of Congress to vote on an amendment that would strip them some of their power is highly unlikely. The first ten amendments limited the power of the government to abuse the rights of the people, but all of the subsequent amendments have expanded the power and control of the government over the people.
The right of secession gives the states the ability to hold the servant government accountable. Denying the states their sovereignty turns the servant into the master.
Just like a marriage contract that can be dissolved so can the contract between the states and their servant government. Secession is the last resort, we should and make every effort to preserve the Union and restore Constitutional Republic. We don't need to amend the Constitution, we simply need to obey it.
looks good. I agree with some of it, but not all.
Ok, This is where every one who thinks the Civil War was fought over slavery is an IDIOT.
Only 5% of the Southern population owned Slaves.
As opposed to the State of Rhode Island which was a total SLAVE FACTORY.
So how did they convince the other 95% to go to war for some thing hey did not care about?
Answer they didn't.
The Civil War was fought over states constitutional rights which had NOTHING to do with SLAVERY.
WAKE UP AMERICA.
OLE DISHONEST ABE made the Civil War into a Slave War to justify the North Attacking the Southern States, putting the North on the side of God for saving the Slaves from their terrible fate, making all the Southern States look like they where against God, also ABE did not recognize their legal secession, instead he said the Southern States were in rebellion, hence the term REBELS.
The Southern States did have a right to secede for a breach of their Constitutional rights.
Go to the Historical site in New Market, Virginia for all the correct information. Every thing I said above is there. They have photo copies of original documents and a one hour documentary on why the Southern States fought the Civil War and it was not over SLAVERY.
Although I have recently heard the the federal government has taken over the New Market, Virginia site so the information may not be there any more so go as soon as possible if you want to know the truth, if the information is still there.
WAKE UP AMERICA.
SO what is your point what are we going to do to correct the propaganda of the De facto government
It is my opinion that the war between the states was based on what every war over the past few centuries was based on, to enrich the banksters. Those banksters had it pretty good with them as the Creditors and the United States govt. as the debtor in bankruptcy since 1791 when the U.S. couldn't repay its revolutionary war debt to France who owed the same to English bankers.
Straw men [corp. fictions of law] can be in bankruptcy for a period of 7 years, however, governments can maintain bankruptcy for 70 years. The U.S. had been in BR for 70 years [1791 plus 70 equal 1861] so time was running out for the banksters who were determined to hang onto their cash cow.
Thus they bribed govt. officials to raise the export duties on cotton to unbearable highs knowing full well that the South's economy was almost completely based on the export of cotton. With this stranglehold on southern agriculture it was only a matter of time before those southern states decided to abandon the union-as was their right. Holding the union together was traitor Abe's excuse for attacking the south.
Since manufacturing was primarily a northern enterprise the North had a distinct advantage in war. Couple that with huge loans from the banksters and the North was pretty much assured of an easy victory. Again the banksters, through France gave aid to the South so that the North would be required to borrow larger and larger amounts from the banksters to overcome them.
Notice a theme here? WWI, WWII, all through history the international banksters have funded both sides of every war with the most funding going to the side who promised the banksters the most control when the smoke cleared.
Needless to say, the North promised the most and so were the best funded and as we all know, won the war. The North borrowed so much money to prosecute the war that it was forced into a second BR with the international banksters once more as the Creditors.
The big difference this time was that, through the Reconstruction Acts, all the state governments were converted to State governments which were, in actuality, sub-corporations of the federal corp. How sweet it was for the banksters. Now they had, not only the federal govt. as a debtor in BR, but all the State govts. as well.
Move forward 70 years to 1931. Everything looked great for America during the roaring 20's but would not last. The banksters knew their 70 years of robbing America was coming to a close so drastic measures were needed. Around 1929 Winston Churchill and Bernard Baruch came to America on a tour visiting every major stock market in the country and with the right bribes set up the stock market collapse of '29. They needed an America desperate for big loans again. Loans that couldn't be paid back. It was this action by the banksters that caused the Great Depression and the banksters rushed in with giant loans of cash created out of thin air to save the country.
This time it was the mother of all deals. They had gotten their federal reserve acts unlawfully passed and they were now entrenched right there at the feeding trough. To top it off they came up with the straw man scam, assigning one to every American and making every straw man a U.S. citizen through the so-called 14th amendment. Go ahead and say it HOLY SHIT!!!! Now they had the federal govt. all the State govts. and every straw man in America on the hook for the BR [funds borrowed to get us out of the depression that we couldn't repay]. Can you imagine how they salivated over the prospect of total enslavement of everyone in America? Seventy more years of bribing their hand picked officials to keep us in the dark while they stole, not only our energies, but our country as well.
Of course, all good things come to an end--or do they? Lets see; 1791 to 1861=1st BR; 1861 to 1931=2nd BR; 1931 to 2001=3rd BR. Now what? Govts. like Straw men can only utilized BR 3 times so does that mean that the banksters are at the end of their run of thievery?
I think not. Enter the 9/11 false flag attack in 2001. Records destroyed. Billions, perhaps trillions stolen and America in trouble once more. Our once great country robbed to the point where we can't even keep our potholes repaired. Since a govt. can only go into BR 3 times under International law where does that leave the banksters? Just create a new government to bankrupt.
I can't prove this at this time but I'm betting that the United States government exists today in name only, lest the sheep awake from their cell phone induced slumber. I submit that there is a new govt. in town that is not openly proclaimed. What is that you ask? Meet your new police state government. I think the new govt. [referred to as a dept of govt.] is called Department of Homeland Security.
You should do your own research. The foregoing are my observations.
Agreed 100%! Well maybe 95%, but yes well put.
Well, Texas joined the U.S. by treaty and the only state to do so, as it was a separate Republic and not a territory,
That treaty gave Texas the express right to secede, but when they exercised that right to join The Confederate States of America, they were brought back into The Union, under force of arms, along with the other Confederate States.
I do not expect any state will ever leave The Union, without a war to win independence.
I believe the best we can hope for is to reclaim the Constitution, that our founders left us. Reclaim our monetary system and limit government to it's enumerated duties.
We could balance the budget, by cutting the bureaucracy 10% a year for ten years and limiting immigration (legal & illegal).
What really bugs the hell out of me is the simple fact that the feds have to threaten war in order to keep a state from seceding then actually go to war to regain it.I say let them go their way and I well gladly join them. With the exception of Kalistan.
The simple answer is if there is a right to join there is a right to un-join