Teh other 70% America really does care what the Trump base thinks when it comes to Mueller's report. They can yell and smell and then scream "we fell". No doubt America as an entity will accept the report and what happens to Trump, good or bad. The best advice for Trumper dissent is to "stay within the law."
yguy may be talking about conservative Jewish, Christian, and Muslim contract bindings. As long as the contracts don't violate the Constitution, they are binding. Nope, John, my second sentence above covers your every concern.
Your second sentence effectively makes all religious contracts non-binding. And I think we agree on that.
Nope, John, not in the slightest. If two parties enter into a religious contract that meets constitutional standards, then they are binding.
How can a religious contract possibly meet constitutional standards when the constitution is agnostic? But let's suppose you are right. Would you like the sheriff to be charged with enforcing religious contracts? Or should he look the other way while clerics enforce contracts? Let's face it. It is totally Constitutional for people being baptized and confirmed and in the process make promises (along with the congregation who also make promises). Who should be responsible to enforce those promises? But I think we have derailed the secession debate.
Sure you can; but you sure as Hell can't do it morally, if your wife has kept her vows and there are young children involved - which of course is the case most analogous to unilateral secession.
I agree. Although I don't know where the young children are in the case of secession. Nor do I understand exactly what vows Kansas could possibly break toward California. But fundamentally, you can't legislate morality. And IMHO you can't (shouldn't) hold California and her citizens against their will.
You know of states that are devoid of young children? Not the issue, obviously. The issue is the vow a unilaterally seceding state is breaking towards the United States, which it made when it agreed to become a state. So the way you figure it, all the laws against murder, rape and theft should be repealed. Right? The citizens of CA are free to emigrate and expatriate any time they like. They don't get to take CA with them.
1. If that is your punchline it is a good one, because absurdity is funny. Do you think NY babies won't see or be supported by their daddy if California seceded? LOL. 2. Please point to the "vow" that citizens in 1776 made, that citizens of 2018 are bound by? 3. Another absurdity. We have inalienable rights. You can guess what they are. If you violate the rights of others that is the government's business. But if you have impure thoughts about your neighbor's girlfriend, or relations with her, that is morality, not legality. If she is caught, the government has nothing to say. Many things are immoral (as judged by most people) but not illegal. 4. Californians are also free to vote for CalExit. Who are you to hold them against their will? The vows of their great grandparents (if vows even exist, and I'm pretty sure they don't) do not bind them generations later. Yes, we had a bloody debate that ended in 1865 over the secession issue. And the South was not allowed to secede. Personally, I think they had a right to do so, but I also think it was worthwhile to invade the South simply to rid the Americas of slavery. With California, Texas, and whatever other state might contemplate going their own way, we are not talking about such profound issues. So I don't think a war would be justified to preserve the Union.
Doesn't matter, obviously. What matters is that those children would be affected by secession - and in the case of CA, detrimentally so for sure. Your request is retarded. You're welcome. If that's the case, you have only yourself to blame, as it is an ineluctable consequence of your assertion. To be sure; and if you actually understood the implications thereof, you would not have said anything so idiotic. It doesn't matter who I am, obviously. What matters is who the United States - aka the People - are to do so; and the answer is that They are the Sovereign Authors of the Supreme Law of the Land, by which every state agrees to abide by applying for statehood, and which implicitly prohibits unilateral secession. You're welcome.
this is true, they also knew we needed a Constitution so we could have equal rights for all and citizens would not be discriminated against under the law all Americans should be able to choose to own guns, choose their own religion, ect....
if we split the north and south, eventually the north woudl merge with Canada and the south would merge with Mexico
Would you allow secession? This country has already experimented with secession, and it cost around 600,000 lives. Because the North won, we ended slavery and opened the door for a future as the most powerful & influential country in the world. If there are states who have failed to learn from our history, and don't have the sense & decency to honor it, then they don't deserve the right to remain in our union. If they think they would be better off on their own without all the constant flow of goods, materials, and people thru their states from everywhere else in the nation, then they ought to try it. They will give up being part of a great country in exchange for the opportunity to spend entire lifetimes struggling to survive as a small, limited entity in a world of larger, stronger and sometimes belligerent nations. We have no need to repeat the losses of the first Civil War. If states want to be so stupid as to secede, then they should have the right to live that stupidity to fruition.
I'd just add that the Soviet Union, in spite of its hostility toward human rights thru most of its existence, did allow the individual republics within it to leave peacefully in 1989.
awesome a resource rich left leaning socialist superpower of about 150 million...and I love visiting california...wait I want Hawaii too!
certain hardline russian nationalists are doing their best to claw some of it back...Ukraine probably regrets giving up it's nuclear arsenal in exchange for a russian promise to recognize it's sovereignty...but that's maybe fair in the end if we're taking about the right to secession, does the Ukraine have a right to hold the Crimea if it's population wants to separate join russia? secession can be a double edged sword...in Canada Quebec has twice voted on the secession issue both times the secessionists lost... but if they seccionists had won wouldn't it also be fair for regions within Quebec to separate as well? if Canada is divisible shouldn't Quebec be divisible as well?
What'sa matter, Jake? California (a likely candidate for secession) brags that its economy is the 5th biggest in the world! Doncha think that such a great concentration of hyperliberal socialists could stand-alone as a much better country than the United States -- relying on no one but themselves...? Oh! How I wish with all my heart California would push the issue! I'd pay extra money in taxes for the rest of my life just to get rid of the sons of bitches once and for all!
would that be the same wall Mexico.... ahhh I mean US taxpayers.... ahhh no US military....ahh geez nafta? ...just who is paying for that wall that's under construction built but not actually being built?????
Trump®Wall as an imaginary construct is as a formidable ideological edifice. As the 2,000 mile concrete and steel barrier that Mexico was guaranteed to pay for, it would be an inefficient, ineffective eyesore.
