Go for it! Secession and the 10th.

[endarkenment]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. - 10th amendment in its entirety.

To see where the nutbags have taken these words: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com - lunatic central

The ignoramuses think the text of the 10th grants them a right of secession. The ironic part of this is that as the text clearly does not state any such right, the only way these nutbags can find a right of secession in the 10th is to claim it as implied from the text but not directly stated. In other words they have to violate one of their own first principles, that the constitution, like their bible, is to be understood literally and is not to be interpreted.

Consistency has never been a concern for the liars and lunatics on the right.

As far as secession goes, I am actually for it. I agree whole heartedly that the 10th amendment confers on the states, particularly the states I fondly refer to as Jesusland, the power to get the fuck out, go the fuck away, and to fuck off and leave us alone.

[WeDidIt]

1. Secession is PROHIBITED by the Constitution

Texas v. White 74 U.S. 700

[endarkenment]

2. Oh they don't care.

And actually the constitution does not explicitly state that states cannot secede. We fought our bloodiest war over that lack of clarity. Post civil war the courts have of course held that the union is perpetual. At this point, I am so fed up with fundaloon gunnut right-libertarian idiots, that I am fine with a bold new interpretation of our founding document that allows these asswipes to exit forthwith.

[WeDidIt]

5. Did you even click the link?

The SCOTUS has ruled the constitution DOES state that states cannot secede.

It's settled law.

[endarkenment]

7. I am not arguing that point.

I agree. Did you even read my response?

[GeorgeGist]

17. I read it ,,,

the SCOTUS cited the Articles of Confederation (erroneously I think, because Texas didn't sign them)

4. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And, when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union."

[Coffee and Cake]

18. Both Salmon Chase and that decision are controversial.

Governments are unjust unless they are based on the consent of the govern. When you lose this consent and voluntary association because government has become destructive, then the people have a right to abolition.

Our union is based off of voluntarily association, and the Constitution was not ratified by the barrel of a gun. Force is an attribute of an authoritative monarch--the type that we had a Revolutionary War over.

[MikeE]

3. Please, let them go, and we won't even need to change the flag

DC can finally get statehood and we can still have 50 states, so no need to change the number of stars

[endarkenment]

4. Texas ain't nearly enough. They can have a few more states too.

And they already have a flag, the one left over from 1865.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Then you would be no different than those radical secessionists in Texas, Alaska or any other state.

Why do you want the union to dissolve?

[endarkenment]

8. The union would be fine. Stronger than ever.

Here is a hint: I'm not actually serious about this. However, if in fact texas and the rest of jesusland went their own way, we would be much better off. Our union would be stronger, far more progressive, not stalemated by rightwing idiots determined to have their stupid way about everything. Good riddance. The only reason why secession was wrong the last time, as far as I am concerned, is that it would have left a large number of good people in a condition of slavery.

[Uncle Joe]

9. How many states are in Jesusland?

I also take it by that statement the First Amendment would be eliminated in the new "stronger union" as that Amendment protects the free exercise of religion along with speech, in effect freedom of thought.

I see no possible way the United States could be stronger if it were divided, only weaker. Any new union will have people of differing opinion until you divide that to the point of either being Borg or until only one person is left.

For whatever it's worth I don't believe you're truly serious, but I do believe many a divorce began with a joke and I hate giving the right winger secessionists fuel for their fire.

[theHandpuppet]

11. I prefer to call it Texassippi

Or perhaps Texabama would be more inclusive.

[endarkenment]

14. Huh? Our first amendment would be just fine. Theirs? I don't care.

I also take it by that statement the First Amendment would be eliminated in the new "stronger union" as that Amendment protects the free exercise of religion along with speech, in effect freedom of thought.


I don't care what they do in jesusland, short of genocide.


I see no possible way the United States could be stronger if it were divided, only weaker. Any new union will have people of differing opinion until you divide that to the point of either being Borg or until only one person is left.

I see it clearly. All the idiots would be over in jesusland wondering how to pay for roads without taxes while here in the United States of America (version 3) we would have universal single payer healthcare, decent old age pensions, universal access to higher education, a robust economy and would no longer have to support all of the redbeats that are a huge drain on the federal budget. Within the non jesusland cohort there is broad agreement on what a just and prosperous society means.

[Uncle Joe]

15. If you don't tolerate or denigrate people because they worship Jesus, or

any other deity, that's no different of an attitude than the fundamentalism practiced by those you claim to abhor.

I imagine there are people that worship Jesus in every state of the union, so why would you want to insult them?

How do you separate all the people regarding their social/political belief, in to the various divided states that you speak of, do you break up families and forcibly move them? And how would that kind action not violate the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, religion or what it all boils down to freedom of thought in non-jesus land?

Surely you're not saying that broad agreement is 100% universal in any state, unless you're speaking of Borg.

[endarkenment]

16. Jesusland refers to the maps drawn up after the 2004 elections.

I'm fine with normal christians who practice their faith peacefully and do not attempt to impose their personal morality on other people. I cannot abide the fundaloon religous nutcases, who predominantly reside in the region I refer to as Jesusland, not because they are christians, but because they are intolerant stupid fucks who want to tell me what to do, want to keep my children ignorant, want to wreck my gay friend's lives, want to bring on the apocalypse under some insane and stupid theory that Jesus will then transport them to heaven, and are otherwise impossible to live with in a progressive secular society.

If you don't tolerate or denigrate people because they worship Jesus, or any other deity, that's no different of an attitude than the fundamentalism practiced by those you claim to abhor.

Aside from the fact that that sentence makes little sense, you seem to be confused, as noted above, as to what the phrase Jesusland refers to and what it means.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech includes my right to find your religion stupid and your religious practices bigoted and repulsive and to say so.

Partition would be unpleasant and messy. And broad agreement does not mean 100% universal agreement. It means that we could get on with building that greener america that was possible back in the 70's, get on with the Great Society that LBJ envisioned as the next step in FDR's New Deal, get on with creating a republic we could actually be proud to leave to our children instead of having to apologize for. And the fundaloon gunnut right-libertarians could go about creating their hell on earth. It would be an interesting experiment. My guess is that within a few years the migration flow would be 99% from Jesusland back to the USA.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Why just the 2004 election maps and not 1976-2000?

They change every election cycle and no state is solid blue or solid red, they vary with the counties, they vary with the towns and they even vary within the same families.

Talking about confused in one breath you want to split off Jesusland, by the 2004 elections maps, in the next you praise the greener america back in the 70s of the Great Society without the least hint of irony, in that primary champions; LBJ, Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore came from or had roots from Jesusland States, meanwhile carpetbagger Connecticut Yankee George Bush came from a blue state.

You are correct about one thing you have as much right to call anyone's religion bigoted, stupid or repulsive and the literal hard core fundamentalists have the same right to judge your lifestyle or beliefs with the same broad brush, black and white attitude and that makes you the same in my book. When you say Jesusland, this insults many of those normal Christians, you spoke of in your first paragraph along with the fundamentalists of which you claim to abhor.

Those "gunnut right libertarians" feel as passionately about the Second and Ninth Amendments as you do the First. The Second, Ninth and indeed all the Bill of Rights were inspired and rightfully so as to be a protection for the people against the overthrowing of the representative democratic republic after a world history of abusive tyrannical governments.

The Second Amendment; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I believe too much emphasis by opponents of the Second Amendment has been placed on "well regulated militia" and not enough on "free", taking in to account the historical context which brought all this about. Every other Amendment of the Bill of Rights pertains to the people's protection against their own government, why would anyone believe this one exception was for foreign relations?

One final point the major corporate media conglomerates are not based in Jesusland, their only God is profit, power and influence. If any institution bears the lion's share of responsibility for turning back the clock on the Great Society and greener reforms of which you spoke in your final paragraph, and turning a blind eye against corrupted election procedures, it is them, they enabled Bush to power, brain washed the people by slandering and libeling our best. They used Machiavellian techniques by splitting the people along their regard for which Constitutional protection they most preferred, just divide and conquer; I would hate to see us fall in to that trap.

For whatever it's worth I haven't attended a church in decades and I don't own a gun.

[anonymous171]

10. Texas may be part of Jesus land but it is also one of the most fiscally stable states out there.

[billyoc]

12. Good, they can feed and clothe the rest of the redbeats.

[endarkenment]

13. redbeats - !