Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-30-2009, 05:37 PM #1
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Day long head-scratcher...

So I've been mulling over something all day, and I want to hear explanations and rational from the variety of yahoos we have here.

If each State entered the Union of their own free will (voluntarily. If you don't know what I am talking about I know you've been around long enough to hear about Puerto Rico's vote to become a state/stay a territory/go independent), how is it "illegal" that a state back out?


Don't worry, I plan on throwing more into this as the conversation moves along.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 11-30-2009, 05:39 PM #2
Smart Parts Player12
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Jersey
Something like you can enter into the Union on your own free will, but once you're in you're in for good.
__________________
But if we get on the treadmill together, there's two things: You're getting off first, or I'm going to die. It's really that simple, right?
Smart Parts Player12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 05:43 PM #3
Wolffhardt (Banned)
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: STL!
They'd have to pass a vote through the public first...

Which would be highly unlikely.
Wolffhardt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 06:02 PM #4
calebh
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: new orleans
this thing called the civil war happened last time states tried backing out of the union. might makes right, as they say...
__________________
Tulane University Paintball
calebh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 06:16 PM #5
bigbootyhos
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
So I've been mulling over something all day, and I want to hear explanations and rational from the variety of yahoos we have here.

If each State entered the Union of their own free will (voluntarily. If you don't know what I am talking about I know you've been around long enough to hear about Puerto Rico's vote to become a state/stay a territory/go independent), how is it "illegal" that a state back out?


Don't worry, I plan on throwing more into this as the conversation moves along.
And out of necessity.
bigbootyhos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 07:19 PM #6
corporationpaintball
too legit to quit
 
corporationpaintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Burlington, VT
Annual Supporting Member
corporationpaintball is a Moderator
corporationpaintball is BST Legit
corporationpaintball donated to help Peyton Trent
corporationpaintball supports our troops
corporationpaintball is one of the top 250 posters on PbNation
corporationpaintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
So I've been mulling over something all day, and I want to hear explanations and rational from the variety of yahoos we have here.

If each State entered the Union of their own free will (voluntarily. If you don't know what I am talking about I know you've been around long enough to hear about Puerto Rico's vote to become a state/stay a territory/go independent), how is it "illegal" that a state back out?


Don't worry, I plan on throwing more into this as the conversation moves along.
Precident makes it illegal - see Texas v. White.
__________________

Old Feedback (+20/-0) | New Feedback (+37/-0)
Annual Supporting Member Council Elite
corporationpaintball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 07:44 PM #7
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporationpaintball View Post
Precident makes it illegal - see Texas v. White.
Interesting. TX vs White ruling says the Constitution only has an entrance and no exit. Something about that doesn't match up with the vast majority of what the founders were writing elsewhere... that is why I am having issues with it.

Wouldn't not being allowed to leave the union be an argument to STAY under England?
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts

Last edited by barrel roll : 11-30-2009 at 07:47 PM.
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 08:11 PM #8
bigbootyhos
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Interesting. TX vs White ruling says the Constitution only has an entrance and no exit. Something about that doesn't match up with the vast majority of what the founders were writing elsewhere... that is why I am having issues with it.

Wouldn't not being allowed to leave the union be an argument to STAY under England?
What? I'm not sure how that would apply.

I suppose it'd come down to if it's in the best interest of the union or not. You also have to keep in mind that the constitution isn't the end all document, even when the country was young founders had to make decisions[while president] that went against the constitution.
bigbootyhos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 10:18 PM #9
corporationpaintball
too legit to quit
 
corporationpaintball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Burlington, VT
Annual Supporting Member
corporationpaintball is a Moderator
corporationpaintball is BST Legit
corporationpaintball donated to help Peyton Trent
corporationpaintball supports our troops
corporationpaintball is one of the top 250 posters on PbNation
corporationpaintball is Boss
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
Wouldn't not being allowed to leave the union be an argument to STAY under England?
Interesting idea, I will have to think about that one and do some research.
__________________

Old Feedback (+20/-0) | New Feedback (+37/-0)
Annual Supporting Member Council Elite
corporationpaintball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 10:40 PM #10
Crede777
Resident Agnostic
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Crede777 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbootyhos View Post
What? I'm not sure how that would apply.
It applies because it is an argument against the secession of a state away from its parent union. He's saying that it's ironic that the founding fathers were against states seceding from the union, but they promoted the secession of the American colonies away from G.B.
__________________
"We Fight! "We March!"
ST: P Conspiracy - It's what's for dinner
ST:R/P I ain't come from no fish!
Derr: Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.
XBL = On3ManRi0t

Breakout Photos
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 10:49 PM #11
bigbootyhos
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
It applies because it is an argument against the secession of a state away from its parent union. He's saying that it's ironic that the founding fathers were against states seceding from the union, but they promoted the secession of the American colonies away from G.B.
Completely different situation.
bigbootyhos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 10:56 PM #12
Crede777
Resident Agnostic
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Crede777 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbootyhos View Post
Completely different situation.
They're both secessions from a governing body. The constitution doesn't say "under some circumstances, it's alright, under others, it's not."
__________________
"We Fight! "We March!"
ST: P Conspiracy - It's what's for dinner
ST:R/P I ain't come from no fish!
Derr: Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.
XBL = On3ManRi0t

Breakout Photos
Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2009, 11:24 PM #13
NotMaxpowOrDarshSauc (Banned)
Not maxpow or Darsh Sauce
 
NotMaxpowOrDarshSauc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oceanside, Ca
States rights were heavily advocated in the Constitution. It was only after the Civil War that this changed. I'm thinking its more a result of the civil war that we have this "set in stone" ideology about secession. Revolutions are good, our founders said so, the civil war was just a failed revolution for half the country, and a successful civil war for the other half.
NotMaxpowOrDarshSauc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 08:08 AM #14
PKT1106
Moved On
 
PKT1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbootyhos View Post
Completely different situation.
Not really. The colonists were getting frustrated that their sacrafices and hard work were going back to great britian to be used frivolously and not for their benefit. Fast forward to today, people are getting increasingly frustrated that the US government is taking their hard work and sacrafices and spending it frivolously and not for their benefit.

One big issue with the colonists was taxation without representation. I think people are feeling a new form of this and are getting angry because they don't think they are being heard (whether they are or not).

And if you want to go one step further you can say the US government telling the people what they can and can't do on a multitude of issues is similar to the oppressive governance of great britian over the colonies. People are starting to feel limited in their lives by taxes and restrictions and frustration is increasing.
__________________
Feedback Thread:
http://pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=276816
PKT1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 09:01 AM #15
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
The difference of opinions about this also reminds me heavily of the "Tories" of the Revolutionary War (aka American War of Independence).

Now, don't confuse my interest in this topic with me saying we should have a revolution/secession. I think it is possible to vote out all the retards we have in office now if people get past the "we only have 2 parties/lesser of 2 evils" mentality.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 10:38 AM #16
PKT1106
Moved On
 
PKT1106's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
I think it is possible to vote out all the retards we have in office now if people get past the "we only have 2 parties/lesser of 2 evils" mentality.
There are alot of people with this mindset not willing to accept the fact that there are more than two "legitimate" political parties. The one thing that both dems and the GOP agree on is to not let any other party be a factor, otherwise they will have to defend their seats against more than one party. The only bi-partisan effort in washington is to marginalize the other political parties regardless of stances on issues.
__________________
Feedback Thread:
http://pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=276816
PKT1106 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 02:23 PM #17
thekid11
 
 
thekid11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
I'm not sure I agree with your comparison between the colonists and present day Americans. It is based solely off of few actual facts and it only accounts for a tiny bit of why Americans really wanted to be free from Great Britain. That being said I'll add my commentary to your actual quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKT1106 View Post
Not really. The colonists were getting frustrated that their sacrafices and hard work were going back to great britian to be used frivolously and not for their benefit. Fast forward to today, people are getting increasingly frustrated that the US government is taking their hard work and sacrafices and spending it frivolously and not for their benefit.

The beginning is based off a partial misconception that you probably learned in your sophomore year of high school (or earlier). The colonists were British, they liked being British, and in fact they wanted to be more like the British. That being said the colonists actually didn't mind supporting the British in ways such as providing troops for the French and Indian War and paying taxes. They didn't really think their "sacrifices and hard work" were being used frivolously and not for their benefit. Instead, on this issue of taxation, the colonists had problems with the British government keeping their heads out of the colonists affairs for a long time and then all of a sudden they come back and start implementing policies. In the time when Britain was trying to handle conflicts in their own country and with France/Spain, they pretty much left the colonists alone. This was when the colonists started to expand by themselves, control themselves, and do things such as increase trade with countries other than Britain. When Britain was able to refocus on the colonies, they saw that the colonists had started doing all this stuff they didn't support or endorse. As a result they started to punish the colonies by implementing several acts, starting with things such as the Navigation Acts. This disrupted colonists trading and it upset the colonists. Another issue was when the colonists started getting taxed they were upset because the taxes were made by Britain and not the colonists. Overall the colonists were not mad at the British for taxing them, but rather they were mad and wanted freedom because during the time Britain was handling its own affairs, the colonists began to develop independently and when Britain came back to resume control the colonists felt they should be their own independent country, sort of like they were for several years.

One big issue with the colonists was taxation without representation. I think people are feeling a new form of this and are getting angry because they don't think they are being heard (whether they are or not).

"No taxation without representation" was a myth, merely propaganda used to get people wanting to break free from their mother country, when in fact the saying was completely false. The colonists did have representatives, who yes represented the colonists, in parliament. An example of the colonists representation at work was the repeal of the stamp act. The colonists didn't like the stamp act, the representatives spoke up, and it was repealed shortly after it was enacted.

And if you want to go one step further you can say the US government telling the people what they can and can't do on a multitude of issues is similar to the oppressive governance of great britian over the colonies. People are starting to feel limited in their lives by taxes and restrictions and frustration is increasing.

Eh you saying the government of today telling people what they can and can't do on a multitude of issues is similar to GB did in the past is more opinion than true. The most that was similar is that the people of today are frustrated with their government. Aside from that it'd be a hard connection to compare GB's oppression vs the U.S. governments restrictions today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbootyhos View Post
Completely different situation.
Yes they are completely different situations.

I know it looks like I didn't address the thread very much, but basically I'm agreeing with bigbootyhos and saying (myself at least) that you can't really use the colonists/american revolution to compare with what's going on today.

Last edited by thekid11 : 12-01-2009 at 02:27 PM.
thekid11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 02:57 PM #18
barrel roll
secedere
 
barrel roll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL/GA border
barrel roll is one of the top 500 posters on PbNation
barrel roll is Legendary
I think you missed it entirely. And Big Booty Hoes too...


Going from sovereign state, then voluntarily becoming part of a federation of states that you cannot leave even if you feel the federal level is not honoring it's contract (enumerated powers, etc etc etc)

OR

Stay under the British flag

^^^^ argument for staying under British flag


If you can't understand what I wrote, suck it. I am drinking beers and working on my house.
__________________
--- UNDRPRVLGD Goggle Straps n stuff ---
If this be treason, make the most of it.-Patrick Henry
I'm a damn veteran, I've got more rights and privileges than you do.
MQ2 rebuild kits, MP4 ram rebuilds, general 'cocker teching
Will soon be making super slick mid/half block bolts
barrel roll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 04:16 PM #19
thekid11
 
 
thekid11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrel roll View Post
I think you missed it entirely. And Big Booty Hoes too...


Going from sovereign state, then voluntarily becoming part of a federation of states that you cannot leave even if you feel the federal level is not honoring it's contract (enumerated powers, etc etc etc)

OR

Stay under the British flag

^^^^ argument for staying under British flag


If you can't understand what I wrote, suck it. I am drinking beers and working on my house.
I understand, I just wanted to address some common misconceptions about U.S. history =P Anyways you can go back to your beer drinking and working on your house, I have nothing else to say at the moment... unless history is misstated again!
thekid11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 06:17 PM #20
bigbootyhos
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
All of you've take Texas v. White into consideration when thinking of this matter. By entering the union you're contractually obligated to uphold the union, by trying to secede you're essentially attempting to renege on your original agreement.

As for the comparison between the civil war/secession and gaining sovereignty: The colonies had no obligations to the British empire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PKT1106 View Post
Not really. The colonists were getting frustrated that their sacrafices and hard work were going back to great britian to be used frivolously and not for their benefit. Fast forward to today, people are getting increasingly frustrated that the US government is taking their hard work and sacrafices and spending it frivolously and not for their benefit.

One big issue with the colonists was taxation without representation. I think people are feeling a new form of this and are getting angry because they don't think they are being heard (whether they are or not).

And if you want to go one step further you can say the US government telling the people what they can and can't do on a multitude of issues is similar to the oppressive governance of great britian over the colonies. People are starting to feel limited in their lives by taxes and restrictions and frustration is increasing.
Lol this discussion was actually nice, it's a shame someone had to bring these antics in here.
bigbootyhos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009, 07:17 PM #21
scadreau
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arizona
scadreau plays in the USPL
scadreau plays in the PSP
scadreau supports Cereal Killerz 2
scadreau plays in the APPA D4 division
The Texas v. White case is an interesting read.

It does not preclude secession.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States"

In theory (based on the ruling), if you can get consent from the "States", you can secede.

All precedent tries to draw a distinct line between secession and revolution. So revolution is always an option while secession is not. Although a bloodless revolution would feel very much like a secession.

I think we will see several states in the coming years push this to the forefront. There are several that are passing laws and resolutions that will put State Sovereignty to the test.
scadreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump