This is where I became immovably stuck, and with nothing but my own medicine to drink. If any wish to allow illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship, to give free college for all, to make all drugs legal, to require an ID to vote, to build a gigantic pipeline of oil, to allow prayer in schools or to prevent it, or even to quit the Union altogether and secede from it - then exercise the legislative and judicial processes that are readily available to you, make your argument, gather your votes and get whatever it is that you need so as to legally allow for it. Absent that, there is little excuse for lawlessness, and anyone who barters and peddles in it - which The South certainly did, and on the grandest and bloodiest scale - should be made to observe and adhere to it, through whatever means that such requires. If any state should wish to secede, then get a legally authorized and Constitutionally-acceptable path to allow for it, and exercise that then legal right. Until then, it is little more than treasonous insurrection of the worst and least forgivable kind.
I'll have to say float, you gave me a good laugh. I mean holy shit, you took a wrong turn several posts ago and now you have gone to crazy town. It's so bad, somewhere in the great beyond John Quincy just went and grabbed his old man and said, dad you gotta see what this dumbass is writing on a message board.
So you've devolved into cognitive dissonance. Good work. That's better than your usual. I take it you do not wish to address the use of "the people" rather than "the state?" Nor do you wish to address why the speech specifically states that States do not have the right? Nor do you wish to address the purpose of highlighting specifically the revolution in the speech? But please, continue to expand on the parts without substance--it is only the thoughts of your brain you are vomiting all over this forum; I can't make you say anything.
Ahh, the good ol' days. I kind of envisioned that after the second debate...Donald vs Bill. Of course Bill would shoot early, as he did on Monica's blue dress, but the press would claim they saw nothing wrong and Bill followed appropriate rules. Trump's dying words..."I told you it was rigged".
This is for you, again, Ben. Go ahead and explain the use of "the people" and how it means "the State" And then do the same here: It'll be amazing.
Look, enough is enough. You have butchered this poor mans words enough. Let him rest in peace. This small speech at the 50th anniversary of Washington's inaugural is nothing more than an emotional appeal to the people of the United States against secession and nullification but if that route is taken, let us part in friendship. It is really quite similar to Jefferson's view. There isn't anything earth shattering in this speech and we probably now hold the record for longest message board discussion on an almost meaningless JQA speech. Your last attempt, when you tried to read into his words that the people must have heart to rebel, is completely contradicted in the last paragraph. The last thing he wants is hostility. "the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint". When he mentions dissolution is found not in the right but in the heart, that is part of his emotional plea which goes back to the beginning where he mentions the thought of such an act is absurd and odious and would be disowned by the founding principles. Again, this mirrors Jefferson quite a bit which isn't surprising since they communicated at times.
What steps must a State take to secede from the Union? How does one approach the Congress with this demand?
Uh, no. It is an exceedingly important speech, as it joins and solidifies John Quincy's views, words and actions: ie: his voting record against succession, his views that a State cannot succeed, and his words, that only the people can succeed. It is quite important. So this may be news to you, but it is quite possible to be against hostility, and still believe that it takes mettle to engage in hostility. They aren't eclusive or conflicting ideas. They are quite old. Si vis pacem para bellum. As to your quote: "If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. " REQUIRES that the people AGREE to separate in friendship. Again, "far better will it be for the people ..., to part in friendship" meaning "it would be best if the people part in friendship" is a statement that both sides, the PEOPLE in the Union and the PEOPLE in the seceding State agree to part in friendship. And an agreement is not required when both sides have previously agreed to allow secession. Not only did John Quincy vote against succession, he has explicitly stated a state cannot secede, and ensures that only the people, through rebellion, can secede, which is always a right of the people.
There are no steps, because a State is not a State before it is recognized by the Fed. Period. In other words, the Fed creates States. And since the Fed creates States, only the Fed can un-create a State. The people of the land that bounds the State are free to do whatever the people can do. But the boundaries of the State belong to the Union that created it, when it accepted it into the Union.
Oh, and Ben, you still need to explain that whole "the people" thing as it relates to John Quincy's speech, and the Second Amendment. I desperately need to be taught how it means "the State" in one, and "the people" in the other.
I never thought to also consider that outside of the original colonies, the rest of the States were at first territories of the US Federal Government, thus nullifying any claims of original sovereignty. It would be impossible for the State to secede as they were, are and always will be a land of the United States. EDIT: I guess Kentucky was part of Virginia (same as West Virginia was part of Virginia), but other than that, every other state as far as I could tell was a US Territory before it became a State.
Ahh, there it is. You finally found your argument. It is wrong and ridiculous, but this would be one of the common arguments against Secession.
Every state enters the Union of states with the same rights and abilities as any other state. Thus, the original 13 sovereign states that created the general government have the right to reclaim any powers granted as does any state that enters the Union of States.
There are literally no steps a state could take. The citizens would need to band together and form an insurgent entity, then gain control of the territory composing the state and successfully defend and maintain it until formally recognized as a new nation-state. Good luck.
