Would you allow secession?

Except the states walked away from that union, so I guess it wasn't all that perpetual after all.

 

Nor does the Constitution prohibit the United States from preventing any state from trying to secede.

 

But SCOTUS says states can' secede.

 

But the constitution does prohibit the general government from doing so. The general government has only the powers given to it in the constitution. Nothing more.

 

Wow! The general government says it can do something forbidden to it in the constitution??? Holy moly! I'm shocked!

 

Longshot yet again fell short.

 

Perhaps you can show me the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union.

 

Perhaps you can show me despite the absence of such language means the states still can't leave. This textualist nonsense would make Scalia slap anyone in the face who said it to him. Your argument, which is merely your opinion, is not accepted in courts. You can cite no such acceptance. Are you now going to melt down?

 

Let's start here: Do you understand that when the states created their general government they delegated to it only a small set of enumerated legislative powers?

 

Let's begin here: Do you understand that you are not a constitutional expert. I offer your comment for summary proof of my comments. Textualist nonsense is . . . nonsense. Do you get that?

 

So you want to ignore what the constitution says. Okay, then there's no point discussing the matter with you.

 

You ignore, Longshot, what SCOTUS says the Constitution means. They are the empowered experts. You are a voice crying in the wilderness. No, don't discuss this with me, because you are wrong.

 

So, you agree with my initial assertion that the constitution contains no language prohibiting any state from leaving the union.

 

Presumably you're here on a political forum to discuss this sort of thing.

The Supreme Court is the branch charged with interpreting the constitution, but there's nothing wrong with having a different opinion, just as there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the legislature when it passes shitty bills.

I strongly doubt you'd push the "SCOTUS says different therefore you're wrong" line evenly. What about DC v Heller or Citizens United for instance.

 

Ha! Yeah, they pointed that out to Abraham Lincoln, too, so, he made up his own 'law' to deal with states that wanted OUT!
"Great Emancipator"...?! More like, "GREAT DICTATOR"....

. "Ya know, the English King was probably right after all -- just send in the army!"

 

The comment is meaningless, because your emphasis on textualism is wrongheaded

Like you support Plessy vs Ferguson? The point is this: shitty textualism leads to civil war and other catastrophes.

.

 

LOL, thanks for confirming you have a closed mind.

 

They're so far beyond anything resembling an honest interpretation of the constitution at this point that it doesn't really matter.

 

Does not matter what the textualist bots preach: SCOTUS is the decider not their opponents.

 

It’s not an emphasis on “textualism”, whatever that is. The states made the rules that govern their general government. Nowhere in those rules did they add any power for the general government to prevent any state from leaving the union.

You understand that the states didn’t give the general government plenary power, right? They gave it a small set of enumerated powers.

 

Priceless: “I know the constitution doesn’t limit the general government’s power because the general government says that it doesn’t”

 

SCOTUS decides what is constitutional, not some textualist. Just does not work that way. Article III gives SCOTUS 'original jurisdiction' over all matters constitutional. Article III gives no consideration to private interpretation. Rightly so.

 

All good points that would have to be considered should those situations actually arise. Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and Russian has become the "native" language of the country, but ethnically, only around 18-20% of the population is Russian. The vast majority are Ukrainian. So, Russian aims toward reclaiming Ukraine as part of their territory are ill founded. A Russian takeover would be pure outright aggression. Of course, the Russian population residing in Ukraine could vote to rejoin Russia, which could split the country. It's a mess that could get a lot messier.

Quebec poses the same dilemma.

 

So my initial assertion stands unrefuted. The constitution gives the general government no power to prevent any state from leaving the union.