Quote:
|
Secession makes no sense from a legal and constitutional perspective. A revolutionary one, yes
|
Revolution and secession are different things. The Civil War wasn't a civil war. (And no, I'm not just using the wrong definition of 'civil.') If VT wanted to raid DC and have a coup, That would be a revolution.
Quote:
|
the Constitution shows the contract between parties, and parties cannot legally breach contracts.
|
True, but if one party is in significant breach, isn't the other party allowed to declare the contract null and void?
Quote:
|
What is not included in an agreement is deemed excluded by contract concepts, and the right or ability to secede is not included in the agreement.
|
But what if the contract includes a rider covering how one should handle such non-included items? Say something to the effect of:
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? Given that secession is not specifically delegated to the US, nor explicitly prohibited to the individual states, I'd go out on a limb and posit that perhaps it's reserved to the states.
Quote:
|
It also makes no sense to form 'a more perfect union' by making it weaker than the Articles of Confederation that had already expressly disallowed secession ... Nothing could make a new nation/union more weak than no glue to bind it
|
I don't know why it was left out. Perhaps the benefits of operating as a more cohesive group under a 'new improved contract' was considered a carrot to replace the AoC's stick. Or maybe they considered the non-secession aspect of the AoC to be one of its faults. In any case, it's not there.
Quote:
|
it stands to reason that there was no longer any need to state the obvious on the perpetual nature of the union.
|
But it Was needed to state what many considered to be the obvious nature of the items listed in the Bill of Rights? That's not very consistent.
Quote:
|
a good number of the states were formed out of federal property afterwards--property that was purchased with federal funds in many cases--and to think that these federal creations are somehow superior in standing to the entity that owned and created them stands on its head.
|
You may have a point here - It's always good to find something where you know you're going to learn something from the ensuing discussion!
The Constitution is a contract between parties. Not unlike a legal firm. Like a legal firm, it can associate with 'lesser parties' such as employees or territories. There are procedures for raising such lesser parties to equal status of full partner, or of recognized State. Once a full partner, they retain full rights under the initial partnership contract, including appropriate rights and procedures for leaving the partnership. Once the US recognized, say, Louisiana as a State, it gained the various rights and powers allowed by the Constitution, including the implicit right to secede. I agree that doesn't seem fair to the US as a whole, especially given the cost of the Louisiana Purchase, but that's the way the contract was worded, which is hardly Louisiana's fault.
Quote:
|
In the last 10 years Vermont has been in a positive cash flow situation with the federal govt. Between $1.03 and $1.13 returned for every dollar collected ... the first result of this plan would be a decrease in the states standard of living.
|
Given the small margin of difference, and that it only applies to whatever portion of their GSP (Gross State Product) is a result of Federal spending, I'd venture that whatever they lose in net cash flow they would probably recoup in increased efficiency of not having to deal with national bureaucracies.
The standard of living would probably still go down due to general upheaval and the earlier-mentioned difficulties of having a large portion of their commerce now being considered 'international', but the federal spending aspect shouldn't be significant.