Secessionists Raided by Armed Feds

[MachZer0]

There is not a process to leave legal at present, if people are that adamant about it they should start the process of amending the constitution to allow for it.

If it's not in the Constitution, then it's a right reserved to the states

 

[CQmethodist]

Then what about states rights? Seems that if a majority choose to leave then they should be allowed to do that

States have rights within the framework of the Constitution, but they do not have the right to dissolve the Union, because there is no Constitutional mechanism to do so. However, the Constitution *could* be amended to provide a mechanism, at which time secession would be possible.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, and it has determined that the Constitution does not allow a state to leave the union, or for a state to nullify or ignore federal laws.

 

[Desk trauma]

That requires a lot of lawyers and book learnin' and money I'm sure. Why do that when...guns?

I say let'em slide on out with a simple majority voter referendum, so long as all federal infrastructure new or built in the past is leveled the next day should they chose to leave the union, all people in the state have to chose of which country they want to be citizens of with no option for dual citizenship, the border is closed so as to avoid any meddling from the feds in the new state. Then again I am a crotchety prick who likes to see people hoisted on their own petards, best stick to the legal process and go for an amendment...

 

[mafwons]

I say let'em slide on out with a simple majority voter referendum, so long as all federal infrastructure new or built in the past is leveled the next day should they chose to leave the union, all people in the state have to chose of which country they want to be citizens of with no option for dual citizenship, the border is closed so as to avoid any meddling from the feds in the new state. Then again I am a crotchety prick who likes to see people hoisted on their own petards, best stick to the legal process and go for an amendment...

That is a horrible idea, then all the rebuplicans would be crying about illegal texans coming over the border.

 

[Desk trauma]

That is a horrible idea, then all the rebuplicans would be crying about illegal texans coming over the border.

Hence the allowing for them to remain US citizens and leave the mighty republic of Texas but surely none would abandon the utopia built there!

 

[mafwons]

Hence the allowing for them to remain US citizens and leave the mighty republic of Texas but surely none would abandon the utopia built there!

That depends on ones particular version of utopia I guess.

 

[mafwons]

States have rights within the framework of the Constitution, but they do not have the right to dissolve the Union, because there is no Constitutional mechanism to do so. However, the Constitution *could* be amended to provide a mechanism, at which time secession would be possible.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, and it has determined that the Constitution does not allow a state to leave the union, or for a state to nullify or ignore federal laws.

The Supreme Court is out of bounds. The Constitution could be interpreted to allow a state to cede, but is any federal agency going to allow that?

 

[whatbogsends]

'Republic of Texas' Secessionists Raided by Armed Feds, Police During a Faux 'Court Hearing'
"FBI agents led a raid on a Texas secessionist "court hearing" to which the group tried to summon a county judge with false legal documents.

The Houston Chronicle reported that the secessionist group believes that it lives in a country independent from the United States. Members of the group call it the Republic of Texas, and maintain "a small working government, including official currency, congress and courts" in Bryan, Texas."

The raid itself is suspicious but what's really troubling is this part:

"The law enforcement team corralled all 60 members of the Republic, and proceeded with fingerprinting, and seizures of cell phones and recording equipment. No arrests were made."

If the perps hadn't believed they were above the law, they wouldn't have been raided.

 

[CQmethodist]

The Supreme Court is out of bounds. The Constitution could be interpreted to allow a state to cede, but is any federal agency going to allow that?

How is the Supreme Court out of bounds? It is the body that is given the authority to make final determinations of what things are or aren't legal under our laws and Constitution. The ultimate interpretation of Constitutional law is that which proceeds from SCOTUS. You may not agree with it, but you can't wish that fact away.

 

[South Bound]

States have rights within the framework of the Constitution, but they do not have the right to dissolve the Union, because there is no Constitutional mechanism to do so.

Secession is not dissolving the Union. The Union would still exist. It would just exist without Texas.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means

That's a very common misconception, but not true.

How is the Supreme Court out of bounds? It is the body that is given the authority to make final determinations of what things are or aren't legal under our laws and Constitution. The ultimate interpretation of Constitutional law is that which proceeds from SCOTUS. You may not agree with it, but you can't wish that fact away.

I don't know where you got this idea, but that's not even remotely true.

Nowhere in the Constitution are we told that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what is or is not legal under the Constitution.

Judicial review is an authority conferred by the SCOTUS upon itself in Marbury v. Madison, not an authority granted it by the Constitution.

To the contrary, because the power of Judicial Review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, this power, per the tenth amendment, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You're not the only one who is so uninformed on this, but the fact that so many are is deeply disturbing and one of many reasons we homeschool.

 

[bhsmte]

The Supreme Court is out of bounds. The Constitution could be interpreted to allow a state to cede, but is any federal agency going to allow that?

Go ahead and make the legal argument you claim above.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Supreme Court is out of bounds. The Constitution could be interpreted to allow a state to cede, but is any federal agency going to allow that?

The Constitution can be interpreted to allow all sorts of things. However the authority for determine what it means is the Supreme Court. These are ideally highly learned and respected legal professionals, who understand how our law has developed. And the Supreme Court actually has a pretty strong record of limiting governmental power, though they also have a pretty strong record the other way.

 

[psalms 91]

States have rights within the framework of the Constitution, but they do not have the right to dissolve the Union, because there is no Constitutional mechanism to do so. However, the Constitution *could* be amended to provide a mechanism, at which time secession would be possible.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, and it has determined that the Constitution does not allow a state to leave the union, or for a state to nullify or ignore federal laws.

Big surprise that the federal wiould rule in favor of the federal. We just may need another tea party

 

[psalms 91]

The Supreme Court is out of bounds. The Constitution could be interpreted to allow a state to cede, but is any federal agency going to allow that?

I am sure that the king of England and parliment had much the same idea and look what that got them

 

[CQmethodist]

The Crown denied the colonists representation in Parliament, which was the key precipitating factor of the Revolution. No American, aside from residents of DC and the outlying territories, are denied a representative in Congress. The situation is hardly comparable.

But yes, as has been pointed out over and over again, the secession of the colonies was illegal under British law. Just as secession is illegal under American law.

 

[South Bound]

The Crown denied the colonists representation in Parliament, which was the key precipitating factor of the Revolution. No American, aside from residents of DC and the outlying territories, are denied a representative in Congress. The situation is hardly comparable.

Actually, that was just one of twenty-seven grievances presented in the Declaration of Independence.

Go ahead and crack open a newspaper and compare the stories with the other twenty-six grievances. You'll find this government doing many of the same things that prompted the Colonies to secede from Great Britain.

But yes, as has been pointed out over and over again, the secession of the colonies was illegal under British law. Just as secession is illegal under American law.

Which law is that? Are you familiar with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?

 

[Billnew]

The Crown denied the colonists representation in Parliament, which was the key precipitating factor of the Revolution. No American, aside from residents of DC and the outlying territories, are denied a representative in Congress. The situation is hardly comparable.

But yes, as has been pointed out over and over again, the secession of the colonies was illegal under British law. Just as secession is illegal under American law.

Some territories have turned down statehood when offered the chance for a voice in congress.

If the people that seceded created the documents, in thier opinion they were not fake. They tried to use thier documents to summon someone that does not recognize their paperwork as legitament.
Maybe this is the reason no one was charged? Because they created it in good faith(to their cause) not actually to commit a crime.
Ie they wanted this person to come see them so they issued a summons that was legal in thier system of government. So maybe even though they haven't "officially" succeded, their local government might have some validity, much like a small towns documents?
Not making excuses, just trying to think of why no one was arrested.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Big surprise that the federal wiould rule in favor of the federal. We just may need another tea party

Will you be participating in such a party, or is this more of a "let somebody else do it" revolution?

 

[psalms 91]

Oh, I would particvipate. I am just waiting for things to bust loose which I am sure they will as there are so many that are very unhappy with the direction this country is going in

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, I would particvipate. I am just waiting for things to bust loose which I am sure they will as there are so many that are very unhappy with the direction this country is going in

So as soon as enough people get it started, you'll happily jump on the bandwagon.... any day now, just wait for it... and say you were with them from day one?

I asked because every time, without fail, I hear "somebody should start a revolution!" It always means "somebody else should start a revolution..."

I see that once again I'm not disappointed. There are far too many armchair Che Guevaras in the Tea Party to take seriously.