The Fair Vote

Proven false.

 

That's not the same as as not allowing. States can't join without Congress either but you'd look silly saying states can't join after we went from 13 to 50.

 

Proven false.

 

You've been asked to cite where in the constitution it states that a state cannot secede. You haven't done this.

 

You showed us a nothing but after the fact .

 

Always fun showing us nothing

 

all at the same time, some members/mods changed their avatars to those anime females with rainbow colorings...

interesting, very interesting indeed...

this post will be deleted for being off topic...

edit: no state can secede on their own volition...

 

Unilaterally can be argued. To say not at all however has no legal basis and undermine the fundamental legitimacy of the US as a product of separatism.

 

Yes, OK. Good history lesson.

So, now what? We all walk away and leave an effing-mess of a Taxation System the way it's been for TWO CENTURIES ... ?

"BFD'', I say. And the one's getting screwed most are those at the bottom. So, taxation must be enhanced both in amount and coverage.

Howzat? Here's how:
*Put taxation ramp-up to 95% at all incomes above 2 megabucks a year. Far more important,
*Death Taxation of 80% of all remaining personal fortune, with only 20% that goes to family. AND
*Whilst alive any part of the personal fortune "given/transferred" to family is taxed as personal-income, and 0% if given to charity.
*Any transfer of personal fortune outside the US is forbidden unless living abroad (whereupon it must appear annually reported in value on all tax forms), and
*Any recuperation of fortune by American citizen inheritor's already exiled and unreported annually is confiscated at 95% even if bequeathed. (Of course, if bequeathed to foreigners, this remains impossible unless there is an existing inter-country tax agreement of dual-country citizens. In which case, the death taxation would work both ways.)

It aint eazy, the notion of income-taxation. But neither is it Mission Impossible. It just takes the will and the right laws.

Most important, however, it may just stop the mindless arrays of legal and illegal means to simply keep higher than necessary incomes. We must leave incentives to motivate people to earn more, but neither need it be an open-door to incredibly high fortunes. Which, in turn stops the mindless manner in which income generates humongously great fortunes that are simply passed on to family inheritors who never spent a day earning it by their own work!

And it goes on and on and on generation-to-generation ...

 

Get off your smartphone and start copying the message and sender to whom you are addressing your comment ... !!!

 

Not until you rightly copy the address of the person to whom you are addressing your "instructions" ... !

 

and you were proven wrong

 

I've done so already. It's in the ruling texas v white

 

yes, I've proven your claim false. Texas v White. States can not secede. The ruling cites the specific language in the constitution precluding secession by the states.

 

yes, I've proven you claim false. Texas v White. States can not secede. The ruling cites the specific language in the constitution precluding secession by the states.

 

I've cited the ruling, which cites where in the constitution.

 

that you were wrong

 

I showed you that states are not able to secede from the union.

 

I was correct, you cite some obsecure supreme court ruling (that can be overturned at any time) about bonds in Texas vs white

 

So you say we dont have freedom and we live in North Korea?

 

I cited a supreme court ruling (that can only be overturned via an amendment) showing you that states can not secede. it's why texas is still a state.

 

I'm correcting you on your claim that states can secede. They can not.

 

Lol no you cited a case after the fact.

Today's supreme court can rule on something and tomorrow Supreme court can overturn it.

I cited many examples.

 

showing you that states can't secede.

no they can't.

that you didn't understand. Those cases were not on the same merits as the previous cases. Nobody has standing to challenge a supreme court ruling. All lower courts are bound by the precedent.

 

Wait so opinions by a Supreme court 150 years ago makes it a law?

No it can be overturned anytime