Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Aloysius]

And from the book description in the link above:

Sounds very interesting, reminds me of some stuff I've been reading by Talal Asad and some postmodernist anthropologists who raise some interesting deconstructions of certain categories and concepts we take for granted, like "religion" itself...sort of Durkheimian even when we really pinpoint that the state and politics themselves take on the same function in society as religion does.

[Winchester]

This was really supposed to be about that bigoted, neck-bearded nationalist.

[Nihil Obstat]

This was really supposed to be about that bigoted, neck-bearded nationalist.

'MURICA!!!

 

 

Neckbeards are a symbol of freedom. DO YOU WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN, TRAITOR???

[BG45]

'MURICA!!!

 

 

Neckbeards are a symbol of freedom. DO YOU WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN, TRAITOR???

 

I'll admit I love that guy's deviantart account so much.  Though I prefer Teddy Roosevelt taking on the bear with the machine gun and the American flag.

[4588686]

S

A state legislature can rescind its ratification of the Constitution based upon the same criteria under which they originally ratified it.  Nothing in the Constitution forbids that, the entire authority of the Constitution rests upon its ratification within a states' legislature so the legislature has every right and ability to rescind that ratification and return to authority over the territory that elected it.  that's why the state boundaries would definitely be crucial in any lawful secession.

 

 

So then why, even after the consent of the participating state legislatures, must states get consent from congress to merge? 

[Aloysius]

ratifying the Constitution is obviously a requirement of membership.  but once you have fulfilled all the requirements for membership in a given club, the club itself still has to decide whether or not to let you in.  say Mexico wanted to join the US... their government could ratify the Constitution, but it'd still be up to the Congress to let them in.  Just because Congress has to agree to let them in DOES NOT mean Congress has to agree to let them out.  If you apply to college, you first fulfill all the requirements and take your tests and then you apply.  The college accepts you, but you don't need the college's permission to leave.  Only if there had been an explicit clause as part of your contract in joining in which you agreed to never leave would you need to seek the college's permission to leave.  

 

Same principle, really, the state ratifies the Constitution and then asks to join the club.  if Congress agrees to let them in the club, that's fine, but they never signed anything that obligated them to seek permission to leave the club at some later date.  the absence of such an agreement makes it pretty clear to me that the states should have the clear right to leave (even if they had agreed I would question how a legislature can bind future legislatures when both bodies have an equal amount of power, the first legislature doesn't have more power than its successors so if they get to decide whether to join or not, every subsequent legislature retains the power to decide whether to remain joined or not)... there's nothing establishing that they would need to ask permission to leave.  congress accepted them as members because they had ratified the Constitution, and Congress has authority over who to let into its club.  But it doesn't really have authority over who to allow to go out of its club.  I'm saying this a few different ways I think, but it's a pretty simple principle and I think it very clearly applies, rescinding your state's ratification of the Constitution constitutes walking away, opting out, previous legislatures had their authority PRIOR to joining the US, therefore current legislatures have the authority to leave the US and return to their sovereignty, exercising the same amount of authority the initial legislatures did.

[PhuturePriest]

Democratic means is just might makes right. It's mob rule, nothing more.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html#ref

 

Haven't you heard? The mob rules (Or at least this song does):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cATPLk559XY

[4588686]

ratifying the Constitution is obviously a requirement of membership.  but once you have fulfilled all the requirements for membership in a given club, the club itself still has to decide whether or not to let you in.  say Mexico wanted to join the US... their government could ratify the Constitution, but it'd still be up to the Congress to let them in.  Just because Congress has to agree to let them in DOES NOT mean Congress has to agree to let them out.  If you apply to college, you first fulfill all the requirements and take your tests and then you apply.  The college accepts you, but you don't need the college's permission to leave.  Only if there had been an explicit clause as part of your contract in joining in which you agreed to never leave would you need to seek the college's permission to leave.  

 

Same principle, really, the state ratifies the Constitution and then asks to join the club.  if Congress agrees to let them in the club, that's fine, but they never signed anything that obligated them to seek permission to leave the club at some later date.  the absence of such an agreement makes it pretty clear to me that the states should have the clear right to leave (even if they had agreed I would question how a legislature can bind future legislatures when both bodies have an equal amount of power, the first legislature doesn't have more power than its successors so if they get to decide whether to join or not, every subsequent legislature retains the power to decide whether to remain joined or not)... there's nothing establishing that they would need to ask permission to leave.  congress accepted them as members because they had ratified the Constitution, and Congress has authority over who to let into its club.  But it doesn't really have authority over who to allow to go out of its club.  I'm saying this a few different ways I think, but it's a pretty simple principle and I think it very clearly applies, rescinding your state's ratification of the Constitution constitutes walking away, opting out, previous legislatures had their authority PRIOR to joining the US, therefore current legislatures have the authority to leave the US and return to their sovereignty, exercising the same amount of authority the initial legislatures did.

 

 

That doesn't answer my question.  And I think it's important because I'm not sure how that requirement fits with your claims about the constitutional relationship between the states and the federal government.  

[Aloysius]

:huh: I guess I don't understand your question then.  states ratify the constitution, then congress either accepts them or not.  the entire authority of the Federal government over the territorial United States rests upon the fact that the state legislatures have ratified the Constitution, making it the Supreme Law of the Land within their states' territorial boundaries.

 

okay, re-reading your question, I was taking the word "merge" to just refer to how the states merged into the United States, but I guess you mean two territorial states merging into one.  two states wishing to merge while remaining within the United States would, of course, need the consent of congress, as they have signed on to Article 4 section 3 of the Constitution, that's what they agreed to and so long as they're part of the United States they have agreed to keep their borders fixed and their relationship to the national government fixed.  if two states both rescinded their ratification of the Constitution, they could merge together if they wished, but so long as the Constitution is ratified they have agreed to authorize federal authority to define the inter-state relations within the United States.  They remain within the constitutional authority of congress so long as the Constitution is ratified in their borders.

[4588686]

:huh: I guess I don't understand your question then. states ratify the constitution, then congress either accepts them or not. the entire authority of the Federal government over the territorial United States rests upon the fact that the state legislatures have ratified the Constitution, making it the Supreme Law of the Land within their states' territorial boundaries.

okay, re-reading your question, I was taking the word "merge" to just refer to how the states merged into the United States, but I guess you mean two territorial states merging into one. two states wishing to merge while remaining within the United States would, of course, need the consent of congress, as they have signed on to Article 4 section 3 of the Constitution, that's what they agreed to and so long as they're part of the United States they have agreed to keep their borders fixed and their relationship to the national government fixed. if two states both rescinded their ratification of the Constitution, they could merge together if they wished, but so long as the Constitution is ratified they have agreed to authorize federal authority to define the inter-state relations within the United States. They remain within the constitutional authority of congress so long as the Constitution is ratified in their borders.

So when a state legislature votes to end their relationship with the federal government does everybody within that territory cease to be American citizens?

[Aloysius]

I would think the US government would have a definite interest in protecting the rights of the US citizens that lived in that state if they wished to maintain their US citizenship.  The US government should negotiate with such a state, establish an embassy, and do their best to help anyone move out of the seceding state back into the US if they wish (or maybe negotiate the possibility of dual citizenship).  I think the US would have to establish some particular legislation relating to people who had US citizenship while living within the seceded state, giving them a certain amount of time to assert their wish to maintain US citizenship... it would be up to the US to determine what to do about such an issue, but they should peacefully deal with it and negotiate and establish an embassy and all that... obviously we have seen that they prefer to violently assert their authority instead, unfortunately.

[Aloysius]

anyway, I don't actually advocate for any state to secede (because I believe there is a danger of violence that makes it not worth it), I simply believe that a state should be able to do so peacefully in principle, both according to the internal logic of the Constitution and just basic reason.  I believe that if a state were to decide this, it should be dealt with peacefully by the US government recognizing their rights, engaging in diplomatic relations, and guaranteeing the rights of US citizens living within that territory until there is a resolution to the issues.  US citizens deserve to have their rights protected by the US so long as they wish it, if a state seceded I'd think the US government would establish some time period after which one would become an expat if they stayed in the foreign state.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Aloysius

[Noel's angel]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/01/scorched-earth-catholics-the-quality-of-discourse-in-the-church-has-become-increasingly-nasty/

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/01/scorched-earth-catholics-the-quality-of-discourse-in-the-church-has-become-increasingly-nasty/

:yawn: If Mark Shea does not appreciate nasty and mean-spirited comments, perhaps he should begin by refraining from it himself. I have found that to be a suitable place to start.

[Winchester]

An ironic complaint on a site that called me a liar for pointing out a difference between mere secession and armed rebellion.