- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I'm for allowing secession
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:35 pm to CarrolltonTiger
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:35 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Along with the taxable benefits the control of the Mississippi River
Carrollton, I think you're forgetting which direction the water is flowing! Without a water use treaty in effect, what remained of the U.S. would be free to divert waters flowing into the Mississippi and its tributaries before it even gets there. It would depend on who else seceded, of course - but its likely the Mississippi could have quite a bit less flow in it!
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:37 pm to SpidermanTUba
I will play
Edit: Don't need 5. Why would I want a resident of the seceded state defending our country?
One major problem with the whole idea:
There isn't an "out" clause to a state's membership in the union. It is because the states that formed the union realized that this wasn't something that they could / should reverse at any given time.
Do most of the states complaining in 2014 realize that they weren't some independent state that joined, but a territory that was purchased in whole and "states" were parceled out and created for the sake of local governance by the USA? I wonder if they have contemplated this. Quite frankly the USA probably still has the right to redraw state lines if it wanted to.
quote:For this reason alone New York and New Jersey will totally allow Florida to secede.
1) No dual citizens. Anyone residing in a state that secedes has 6 months to decide if they want to continue to be a U.S. citizen, or to be a citizen of the seceded state (and forfeit all their rights to social security, medicare, veterans care, federal pensions, etc.)
quote:I don't see a need for this. Plus it would be bypassed and difficult to enforce.
3) Seceded states agree to not form a confederacy with other seceded states for a period of 99 years.
quote:No complaints.
2 ... 4.
Edit: Don't need 5. Why would I want a resident of the seceded state defending our country?
One major problem with the whole idea:
There isn't an "out" clause to a state's membership in the union. It is because the states that formed the union realized that this wasn't something that they could / should reverse at any given time.
Do most of the states complaining in 2014 realize that they weren't some independent state that joined, but a territory that was purchased in whole and "states" were parceled out and created for the sake of local governance by the USA? I wonder if they have contemplated this. Quite frankly the USA probably still has the right to redraw state lines if it wanted to.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 10:41 pm
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:37 pm to SpidermanTUba
I'm good with it as long as we can make slaves out of white liberals. Can't wait to see hipster boy cutting my grass in skinny jeans and a fedora.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:37 pm to SpidermanTUba
Do the territories that secede have to pay their share of legacy (debt) costs?
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:38 pm to Wild Thang
quote:
Exactly, along with control of the Gulf.
I don't think Mexico would agree with that statement.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:40 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Do the territories that secede have to pay their share of legacy (debt) costs?
Yes, but we'll count all renounced social security, medicare, and other obligations towards that amount.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:40 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I don't think Mexico would agree with that statement.
Who gives a shite? They will be in cali with your dumbass!
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
Since Lincoln was a criminal for not allowing succession, I would think that states should be allowed to leave just like Scotland is being allowed to vote. No one nor the constitution gave Lincoln the right to force states to stay in a union they didn't desire to stay in.
Every state would leave save New England, Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington. The other close states would probably choose to go with the red states, knowing the blue states would be bankrupt soon.
Every state would leave save New England, Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington. The other close states would probably choose to go with the red states, knowing the blue states would be bankrupt soon.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
To Jefferson, the importance of New Orleans could not be understated. "There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three eighths of our territory must pass to market," he wrote to Robert Livingston, his ambassador to France, early in 1802.
Dumb arse the mid west needs the port of new orleans for access to world markets, they were shitting bricks when Katrina closed the port.
Louisiana isn't going to go dry even if it was possible to divert significant water from northern commerce along the mississippi.
Dumb arse the mid west needs the port of new orleans for access to world markets, they were shitting bricks when Katrina closed the port.
Louisiana isn't going to go dry even if it was possible to divert significant water from northern commerce along the mississippi.
This post was edited on 9/10/14 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:46 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
For this reason alone New York and New Jersey will totally allow Florida to secede
quote:
Plus it would be bypassed and difficult to enforce.
The U.S. would still have the bomb and the entire US military. It would be pretty simple to enforce.
quote:
There isn't an "out" clause to a state's membership in the union. It is because the states that formed the union realized that this wasn't something that they could / should reverse at any given time.
Although allowing secession is not explicitly mentioned - certainly the U.S. - as a sovereign entity - has Constitutional authority to cede part of itself to another entity by treaty and ratification.
de-facto - state secession can be Constitutionally accomplished by
1) the state who wishes to secede sets up a government that claims land somewhere else - anywhere - it doesn't matter. They can probably pay some South American country to get an island.
2) Once they have established a sovereign government of any kind anywhere in the world, the U.S. may now enter into a treaty with them.
3) U.S. and pre-state government enter into treaty to cede land of the state to that government - with all the conditions above.
4) de-facto secession.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:46 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I'm for allowing secession. If wanna leave good riddance, with the following conditions:
1) No dual citizens. Anyone residing in a state that secedes has 6 months to decide if they want to continue to be a U.S. citizen, or to be a citizen of the seceded state (and forfeit all their rights to social security, medicare, veterans care, federal pensions, etc.)
2) With the exception of actual real estate, all federal property is returned to the United States - including nuclear arsenals and any other weapons and any monies owed. Any land and buildings within the state the state gets to keep - with the exception that any federal land which is bordered by a non-secession state is kept by the feds, and any buildings which themselves contain architecture classified as secret will be removed or destroyed.
3) Seceded states agree to not form a confederacy with other seceded states for a period of 99 years.
4) Any state whose secession would cause one part of the continental U.S. to be physically cut off from another agrees to allow the U.S. to keep enough sovereign land in the state to guarantee a continuous passage for U.S. residents.
5) All members of the U.S. military are still required to fulfill their service obligations, and seceded states agree to aid the U.S. in apprehending service members who violate those obligations.
This one is a pretty huge sticking point- basically only maybe 10 states could go it alone due to either advanced and diverse economies (California, Texas, New York, possibly Washington) or natural resources ala a Petro-state like Saudi Arabia (North Dakota, Alaska, Louisiana) most other states that have ever talked about seccession would quickly collapse into third world status-- what's say Mississippi going to do to prevent complete and utter economic collapse without federal dollars to cover their retiree's, federal investment to pay for its infrastructure and federal jobs?
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:48 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The U.S. would still have the bomb and the entire US military
But they wouldn't...You think the south bases leave for Detroit Utopia?
Posted on 9/10/14 at 10:57 pm to S.E.C. Crazy
quote:
Since Lincoln was a criminal for not allowing succession, I would think that states should be allowed to leave just like Scotland is being allowed to vote. No one nor the constitution gave Lincoln the right to force states to stay in a union they didn't desire to stay in.
Every state would leave save New England, Illinois, California, Oregon and Washington. The other close states would probably choose to go with the red states, knowing the blue states would be bankrupt soon.
I don't see PA, OH, MI, leaving the Union to join a bunch of southern states, nor Colorado, Missouri would be a tossup at best, Nevada and Hawaii would stay as likely would Florida and Virginia, North Carolina would be a toss up at best.
Basically (and only if this happened soon and only if say the defense contractors in Texas were allowed to move all factories and tech to the new US) basically all that would even think about it is- the SEC States- minus Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, UT, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. Alaska would leave but there is almost zero chance it would join any confederacy instead of going its own way.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 11:01 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Dumb arse the mid west needs the port of new orleans for access to world markets
The true dumb arse is one who believes the port of New Orleans will cease to serve the needs of the mid west. Short of an embargo, nothing would change.
I mean, if our new country of Louisiana will be the type to blockade ports and restrict free trade, then I wouldn't want to live there. It would defeat the purpose.
Posted on 9/10/14 at 11:04 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
the control of the Mississippi River and port of New Orleans
You'll have as much control as your mighty Louisiana navy is able to wrest from your envious neighbors.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 12:04 am to Layabout
If Louisiana voted to secede from the US, it isn't the poor folks who would be leaving. Poor people cannot afford to pick up and move. It will be patriotic Americans of the middle class and some rich folks who will leave. It will be the most educated among us who leave. It will be many professionals who choose to leave.
Of course if it were an untampered with vote on secession, Louisiana would NOT secede. Louisiana only seceded in 1861 as that election was tampered with. Thank you Dr. Mark Carleton.
Of course if it were an untampered with vote on secession, Louisiana would NOT secede. Louisiana only seceded in 1861 as that election was tampered with. Thank you Dr. Mark Carleton.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 12:19 am to mmcgrath
quote:
One major problem with the whole idea:
There isn't an "out" clause to a state's membership in the union. It is because the states that formed the union realized that this wasn't something that they could / should reverse at any given time.
Do most of the states complaining in 2014 realize that they weren't some independent state that joined, but a territory that was purchased in whole and "states" were parceled out and created for the sake of local governance by the USA? I wonder if they have contemplated this. Quite frankly the USA probably still has the right to redraw state lines if it wanted to.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century history disagrees with you.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:13 am to SpidermanTUba
I wish you would secede from this board.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:30 am to TbirdSpur2010
Yeah Texas really needs to GTFO. I'm tired of those gun crazy over caffeinated cowboys.
Posted on 9/11/14 at 4:54 am to GeorgeWest
poor people cannot afford to pick up and leave?
15 million Mexicans say there is a way Jose
they will follow the gov't dole
15 million Mexicans say there is a way Jose
they will follow the gov't dole
This post was edited on 9/11/14 at 4:56 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News