Would you allow secession?

I'd say no. I would not support splitting up the nation. There is strength in numbers when it comes to the world platform.

 

immaterial

 

Yes, immaterial to those with disdain for the constitution

 

Who agrees with your assessment, Longshot?

 

I believe that freedom of association is a basic right to life and that no one has a right to dictate it to others, so yes I would allow it even though I do not believe in the legitimate existence of any state.

 

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

My goodness. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"

All of the above is original jurisdiction for SCOTUS, meaning cases . . . "under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," and its treaties.

The fact was reinforced in Marbury and has been the law of the land.

 

I do.

Prior to Marbury, the SC jurisdiction was limited to those matter that I quoted from article III: treaties, cases affecting Ambassadors and other official, maritime law, issues between states, issues between citizens of differing states, etc. It was Marbury where the SCOTUS usurped power far beyond their Constitutional mandate, and since then the rest of the federal government has followed suite and has bastardized the Constitution far beyond it's original meaning.

 

Nine of the colonies had judicial review before the Constitution. That becomes part of case law is not surprising. The textualists can be unhappy but will change nothing.

 

...and yet it still wasn't written into the Constitution (and for good reason- judicial review does not apply well between states with in treaties), it was entirely plucked from nothing and nothing more but a grab for power that has resulted in the crisis that the people now find themselves facing.

Marbury is single handedly allowing men to tear apart the republic.

 

Aside from the combined lack of constitutional knowledge offered above, the fact remains that judicial review is accepted in our governing system, and that the federal judiciary has original jurisdiction over constitutional matters.

It's fun to watch the textualists and originalists have to grin and bear it because they can do nothing else other than be unhappy.

 

A list of the judicial Power extended to thetSupreme Court by the Constitution:

1) Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls
2) Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction
3) Controversies to which the United States shall 4) Controversies between two or more States;
5) between a State and Citizens of another State
6) between Citizens of different States
7) between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

It appears that you agree with my assessment. I explained how the constitution contains no language giving the general government the power to prevent any state from leaving the union. Since you have not gone to the trouble of producing any language from the constitution to disprove my claim, I have to assume you agree with my assertion.

 

Nope, Longshot, I don't agree with your assertions' implications: they are meaningless.

 

Use the quote function, or I may never see that you replied to me.

You must agree that the constitution contains no language allowing the general government to prevent a state from leaving the union. You've offered no counter argument. You've not shown any such language. Therefore, my observation stands unchallenged.

 

And that observation is meaningless, so no counter argument is necessary.

 

Follow the power and money. Who loses with the secession of a state? It's certainly not other states that will lose. It's not the state or states that secede. It's the Federal Government that loses power and revenue.

 

And that power and money in the South, 90% directly or indirectly of every business dollar, was invested in slavery and supporting it.

 

You really coudln't be more off base if you tried. Neighboring states will be subjected to harassment by whatever superpower the seceding state becomes subject to, and all the states will end up footing the bill for defending them.

 

Give us an example, yguy.

 

Bull ****. You assume too damn much. You assume the various states won't maintain relationships and form trade and common defense treaties. Think NAFTA and NATO.

This time try.

 

On the contrary, I assume they will do all of that.

With America's enemies.

Hardly necessary, when you know what you're talking about.

 

Each state still is a separate nation. The lines seem to be blurred only because of the long life of this here (union)federation of states. States are free to leave but you would see massive hostility within any state if it seriously wanted to secede, mostly because of the first point, even, yes you guessed it, Texas.

I voted no, because I would not allow my state to secede if I had that power.

 

I'm not sure I understand. Each state may be a separate nation, but only nominally. Basically, none have their own standing army. The feds are the only ones who train. States are so beholding to the fed gov't for monetary gifts, they cannot stand on their own. They consistently beg for more. I'm sure there are plenty more examples, but I'm a bit too tired to search for them.

In consideration of the above, what do you mean?