State secessions

[The Rabbi]

The argument from silence is very convincing when mentioning a fact can be seen as so natural that its omission is a good reason to assume ignorance.

• 
  
• From a bathing tub
  I throw water into the lake -
  slight muddiness appears.

Kawahigashi, Hekigodo. (1873-1937).

[Urse]

I am a simple man Jenny but what in the h..l are you two talking about?

[Marswolf]

Personally, I adjure obfuscation.

Didn't this topic start about a bunch of flakes who are trying to secede from this country? I suggest they personally secede and move to some remote island away from me.

For some reason this topic reminds me of a bumper sticker:

"Why yes I am a humanities major... would you like fries with that?"

[The Rabbi]

For some reason this topic reminds me of a bumper sticker:

"Why yes I am a humanities major... would you like fries with that?"

I saw that bumper sticker. On this vehicle in fact:

[Guest canynracer]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

more than you will ever want to know about the subject....

[The Rabbi]

Great article, thanks muchly.

[Marswolf]

Well, that is either a very balanced examination or a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, depending on your view.

As I've said before, neo-secessionists are flakes. This is really a dead issue.

But the US Constitution would have never been ratified without a secession clause if the ratifying states had not thought they could withdraw at will from the Union. A number of them specifically reserved that right in accepting the document. Just shows the importance of crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

[The Rabbi]

Well, that is either a very balanced examination or a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, depending on your view.

As I've said before, neo-secessionists are flakes. This is really a dead issue.

But the US Constitution would have never been ratified without a secession clause if the ratifying states had not thought they could withdraw at will from the Union. A number of them specifically reserved that right in accepting the document. Just shows the importance of crossing the t's and dotting the i's.

Whatever some people may have thought at the time is a non-argument. The case cited, Texas vs White, settles the issue.

[Marswolf]

Texas vs White was 1868. Hardly a time with an unbiased Court.

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!

[The Rabbi]

Texas vs White was 1868. Hardly a time with an unbiased Court.

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN!!!

Yeah. As soon as all the stump-broke in-breds can wean themselves off their disability checks....

[fury2neon]

Yeah. As soon as all the stump-broke in-breds can wean themselves off their disability checks....

Ouch, and a pleasant day to you to sir.