Texas nationalist Would Like to Secede Now

How would a state seceding not affect interstate commerce?

 

I naturally despise politicians. I hate lying politiciams even more and race doesn't play a part in it for me.
I was stating a truth. Obama is half white and half black. Bigotry had nothing to do with that statement. He has dreams of a dictatorsip. Nothng bigoted there.
He has stolen 14 trillion dollars from the American people and given it to the banks. Nothing bigoted about that statement either. He's just another typical lying thieving politician with delusions of self-grandure.

 

A state seceding would be a foreign nation. Congress could regulate commerce with this foreign nation, as it can regulate commerce with any nation. It could also regulate commerce among the remaining states in the union.

How does any of this mean that congress has any power to stop a state from seceding?

 

Only if it was allowed to secede, the secession itself would affect interstate trade, which gives Congress the right to legislate on the legality of secession.

 

I don't think your source explicitly affirms your position. My position is that it is unclear and would be decided by SCOTUS.

 

Congress has the power to regulate trade among the states. Congress does not have the power legislate on anything that might somehow have an effect on trade among the states. Apples and oranges.

 

No it quite clearly does as trade among them is what is being regulated.

 

And my position is that as per SCOTUS ruling in Texas Vs White the SCOTUS has already determined that secession is not an option, the Union is binding in perpetuity.

 

First, regarding the "chi square tests" comments, thats the liberal way of marginalizing the opponents arguement. Its like saying conservatives are astroturf and their concerns dont have to be considered. I didnt bring up the 1860's Civil War either, I was only responding to the comparison someone else brought up.



I read the article, I thought it sucked. It has some good points but it couches everything in obtuse language (I think in an attempt to look scholarly). It basically says people split along different issues, and those issues align with either D or R because the leaders of the parties influence teh people, and teh people influence the leaders. As the split on issues gets deeper, the split between D and R gets deeper. Don't need none of them thar (to paraphrase Hilary Clinton) any academic to tell me that.

The reason for the divide is simple. Half the country (51%) wants to move towards bigger govt/socialism. Half the country (49%) wants to move in the opposite direction. Some social issues suchas a abortion and religion align well with the "size of govt" divide and reinforce the split. They are divided geographically as well as politically. Result: deep divides, no room for compromise.

 

Some are still on the ridiculous idea that a state cannot secede because the scotus says it cant.

Go look up the definition of "secede". It means to withdraw from a union. It means to reject the system including the scotus and its rulings. Secession is not as much a legal action as it is a reflection of the contempt of the people for the govt, and a withdrawal of the peoples consent to be ruled by that govt. Its a sign the govt has failed to live up to its end of the mutual agreement. Waving a ruling from the very organization that the people reject and hold in contempt is foolish and futile. If you want to stop a state from seceding, you have to address the structural reasons the state is seceding.

 

Actually it does according to several Supreme Court cases.

 

Actually it does according to several Supreme Court cases.

 

OOO...confessions! Do tell!

With that face on your avatar that only a mother could love, you really would be doing such immoral acts and bragging about it.

I say secede, fight and kill the fascists, and rebuild. Just saying. Somewhat sarcastic. Somewhat.

Seceding is a really good idea, though. And, as far as the latter, yeah, NOT a bad idea either.

 

No kidding? Really? You're telling me that the federal government says it has a power that isn't in the constitution? I'm shocked!

 

It wasn't the federal government, it was the Supreme Court when it expanded the definition of how to apply the commerce clause.

 

And the supreme court is part of the...

 

Constituion, Article 3

 

And the constitution establishes the...

 

A trilateral, Republican form, of government where each branch does not control the other. The Supreme Court job is to decide whether the specific law decides the Constitutional basis of a law when that petition is brought before the court through the judicial process.

 

Yes indeed. The constitution establishes the federal government, and the judicial branch is part of the federal government.

That is why I pointed out that the federal government is acting as a judge in a dispute in which it is itself a disputant and that nobody should be surprised when the federal government's decisions result in it having more powers. This is simply what happens when absolute power is handed to a small group of people. You seriously think they're going to demur and turn down the opportunity to grab more power?

Therefore, I will repeat:

No kidding? Really? You're telling me that the federal government says it has a power that isn't in the constitution? I'm shocked!

 

Once the Supreme Court rules on a law that is Constitutional, such as the expansion of the commerce clause, then that law does become Constitutional no matter how you define "That isn't in the Constitution." That phrase becomes moot in the discussion, generally. The question really becomes "what would happen if the Supreme Court rules that succession is not Constitutional?"

 

I agree. To a large extent, the absolute power of the federal government renders the actual text of the constitution irrelevant. We have arrived at the point where the law is nothing more and nothing less than what the federal government says is the law. Pointing out the actual rules to them is an exercise in futility.

Sometimes I wonder why we even have a branch of law called constitutional law. It should simply be renamed to "the law as dictated to us by the federal government".

So it is no surprise to me at all that the federal government claims a power that is not actually written in the constitution and that serves to solidify its absolute rule. Those with absolute power rarely decide in favor of giving themselves less power. In fact, I cannot think of such a thing ever happening.

 

But that is your interpretation. The Supreme Court's interpretation is what matters. That is why we have gone from compact theory, to dual federalism, cooperative federalism, and neo federalism as the "official" official interpretation of the Constituion. The said document isn't exactly clear, such as Congress has the laws that are "ordinary and necessary." Finally, you have Marbury v Madison which established the precedent Judicial Review. This allowed the federal government to establish the judicail process with federal district courts and appeal courts. And with other Supreme Court cases that have established important precedents. again I state, your argument is moot within the context of what is Constitutional and what is not,.

 

But that is your interpretation. The Supreme Court's interpretation is what matters. That is why we have gone from compact theory, to dual federalism, cooperative federalism, and neo federalism as the "official" official interpretation of the Constituion. The said document isn't exactly clear, such as Congress has the laws that are "ordinary and necessary." Finally, you have Marbury v Madison which established the precedent Judicial Review. This allowed the federal government to establish the judicail process with federal district courts and appeal courts. And with other Supreme Court cases that have established important precedents. again I state, your argument is moot within the context of what is Constitutional and what is not,.

 

I am agreeing with you. At this point, the opinion of the federal government is law, not the constitution.