Nikki Haley say only CEOs count in her state

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly. And, better written than my attempt.

Which is your right.

us aspies should be in more agreement about stuff, but I guess that is just a pipe dream.

The United States is hardly just a hobby club, needless to say. And individual Americans recant their citizenship all the time, but there is not a single word in the constitution justifying any state leaving the Union. As for seceding for the sake of liberty - as the Confederacy was primarily motivated by the preservation of slavery, secession in that case hardly was about the preservation of any sort of freedom. And no, those tariffs on the south were hardly justification enough for leaving the country, as they had been arrived at by representative government, rather than having the evil Yankees forcing it on the south as if from a foreign power.

We're no different fro NT's in that respect - get three Aspies in a room, and you'll have three or more opinions.

worse than economists or weathermen of old.

Both are voluntary associations, formed for mutual benefit. This is called an "analogy."



Actually there is: the Tenth Amendment. Since the federal government is not expressly granted the power to compel states to stay in the Union, that power does not legally exist. The Founders would have considered it blindingly obvious that that which is voluntarily joined may be voluntarily unjoined, whether by individuals or by groups.



If you're not going to bother reading a post, why bother replying to it?

Even if the constitution doesn't say anything about the federal government having the right to compel states to stay in the union, and just because the tenth amendment guarantees the states powers not given to the federal government, it hardly justifies secession.
And yes, I did read your post; I was only bringing up the Confederacy as an example of secession without any justification for the sake of freedom (which you said justified leaving the union), as it was for the preservation of slavery. Please, don't be rude.

It does, if and when the federal government becomes despotic. That hasn't happened ? yet.



Just to make myself clear, I do not defend or admire the Confederacy in any way. Slavery was a great evil, the worst contradiction in the founding of the country, and while Lincoln did many things I think were unjustified there is no doubt that the right side won that war. And waiting for the rebels to fire on Federal property was exactly the right strategy: that took the whole secession issue out of the picture, legally, and made it a relatively simple matter of a clearly illegal insurrection.



Do you go through a lot of Windex, maintaining that glass house of yours?

When have I been rude?

The states either have the right to secede or they don't, regardless of what damage it may do to the pre-secession nation.
Find where it says in black and white where they don't have the right to secede.

As Lincoln said, no government is going to legalize it's own destruction. The constitution doesn't say we have the right to secede, and it doesn't say we don't, so we need to put it to common sense. And common sense says, a country, except under the the most extreme circumstances, needs to stay together. The idiots calling for secession today are racist nutbars who don't want to pay taxes to help poor people because poor people are stereotyped as racial minorities. So their justification is hardly defensible, and doesn't fit the criteria of common sense by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America answers the question of states' rights to secede by providing that "[t]he 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." As such, Thomas Jefferson (who knew a little something about the Declaration of Independence because he wrote much of it) and James Madison (who knew a little something about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because he wrote much of them) found in that little amendment the truth that, absent any enumerated constitutional authority which delegates the provision for, or prohibition of, the nullification and imposition of federal mandates, or, in the case of Jefferson, delegates the provision for, or prohibition of, secession of the states (there are none, by your own admission), the power to secede is "reserved to the States[.]" Simple.

According to you, then, the United States is an illegal union since we seceded from the British Empire against it's will.
What's good for the goose...............

BTW, you're habitual tossing in racism, homophobia, greed, and heartlessness at anything and everything you don't approve of demonstrates the weakness of your arguments.

I am in agreement with you on that point, but I fail to see where that leads to justifying secession.

Well, that is something, then. To shift the discussion from one of "secession is unconstitutional" to one of "secession is probably a bad idea" is one which I support. I don't believe that secession is the optimum result of disagreements that states might have with unresolvevd federal mandates. At the least, secession would be very difficult to manage for a land-locked state, for example; not impossible, just difficult. A justification for a state to secede would, for me, include the idea that continuing to accommodate a federal mandate would be so repugnant to the state and its citizens, that "going it alone" especially without the assistance of other states and, probably, other nations (at least temporarily) would be preferrable than continuing the status quo. One possible example about repugnant federal mandates would be the land-use mandates that keep my own state, Utah, at near-maximum capacity with residents because over-70 percent of state land is federally managed, and allowed to be leased for the use and harvesting of natural resources, but not (necessarily) for permanent communities. As a result, while Utah has about 3 million residents, we are beginning to feel the need for more room in one of the emptiest states in the union. Not a matter of economics, but of resources, I can see a day when our government leaders might consider secession (or the threat of such) just to put an exclamation behind our years of failed lawsuits, negotiations and political "deals" just to get the attention of a federal government which sees us as inhabitants of its land. Other states have equally compelling reasons to see independence an attractive alternative, whatever the downside might be.