| Author |
Topic:
The States' Right to Secede
|
LordNyax113
Registered:
Oct '07
|
Date Posted:
6/7 10:17am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
- Date Edited:
6/7 10:18am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
LordNyax113
|
From the Wikipedia page on "Secession":
"In November 2006, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that secession was illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, and refused to permit an otherwise proper Initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote [to secede]."
Brackets and words in them added by me.
So, unless its brought to the Supreme Court, I think its safe to say secession is illegal at the most, and not taken seriously at the very least (at least for now).
-----signature-----
Padawan of Aiel
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
6/7 10:04pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Didn't the American Civil War answer this topic?
The federal government now = national government.
We can talk all we want about what the Constitution does or doesn't say, but the states and localities are secondary to the national/federal government today.
That is unfortunate, but it's what I see, hear, and read.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
6/7 10:49pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
LordNyax113 posted:
From the Wikipedia page on "Secession":
"In November 2006, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that secession was illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, and refused to permit an otherwise proper Initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote [to secede]."
Brackets and words in them added by me.
So, unless its brought to the Supreme Court, I think its safe to say secession is illegal at the most, and not taken seriously at the very least (at least for now).
Except that's not the way it works.
The Alaska Supreme Court only has authority to decide what is permissible under Alaskan Law. It cannot create any binding precedent for any other state, nor for matters in federal court.
Kohlhass v. State can only decide whether secession is legal in Alaska. It cannot decide that under any other state laws.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LordNyax113
Registered:
Oct '07
|
Date Posted:
6/8 5:08am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
LordNyax113 posted:
From the Wikipedia page on "Secession":
"In November 2006, the Supreme Court of Alaska held that secession was illegal, Kohlhaas vs. State, and refused to permit an otherwise proper Initiative to be presented to the people of Alaska for a vote [to secede]."
Brackets and words in them added by me.
So, unless its brought to the Supreme Court, I think its safe to say secession is illegal at the most, and not taken seriously at the very least (at least for now).
Except that's not the way it works.
The Alaska Supreme Court only has authority to decide what is permissible under Alaskan Law. It cannot create any binding precedent for any other state, nor for matters in federal court.
Kohlhass v. State can only decide whether secession is legal in Alaska. It cannot decide that under any other state laws.
Kimball Kinnison
Oh, I understand that. Its the precedent that has been established. From this ruling, the Civil War, and more; secession is either not taken seriously or is just considered in an unspoken way to be illegal.
-----signature-----
Padawan of Aiel
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rumsmuggler
Registered:
Aug '00
|
Date Posted:
6/8 1:26pm
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
LtNOWIS posted:
As for us Virginians, we really don't want West Virginia back. I'm happy to use my 1863rd post to declare that.
indeed.
-----signature-----
" Conan, what's best in life?" " Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the women."
W.W.L.D. What Would Lando Do
"Why is the rum always gone?"
Retcons = making the dumb stuff look even dumber.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jek_Windu
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
6/17 9:34am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Master_SweetPea posted:
Kimball_Kinnison posted:
Because it's not just a symbol of racism and rebellion. It is also a symbol of heritage and pride for some people.
Exactly.
my Great-Great-Great-Grandfather was a Confederate Soldier, no one in our family ever owned slaves.
It's a symbol of heritage, and yes rebellion against Northern Aggression 
I've known many minorities that have had "rebel" flags in/on their cars and homes.
To tell someone else what their symbol means to them is foolish.
Because one group defiles a symbol does not mean that symbol can never again be used.
I see where you're coming from- one of my best friends is a rather proud Texan. However, it's also important to remember to the other side of your argument: what it can say about you to other people. For many people, including myself, the Confederate flag represents a legacy of slavery, treachery, hypocrisy, and cowardice. It would be comparable to a German displaying the Nazi flag. He may see it as part of his heritage, but it stands a very good chance of making people think he is a racist.
-----signature-----
Tryanids: You don't have enough bullets! Imperial Guard: YES WE DO! R.I.P. Trini 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
6/17 9:57am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
Jek_Windu posted:
I see where you're coming from- one of my best friends is a rather proud Texan. However, it's also important to remember to the other side of your argument: what it can say about you to other people. For many people, including myself, the Confederate flag represents a legacy of slavery, treachery, hypocrisy, and cowardice. It would be comparable to a German displaying the Nazi flag. He may see it as part of his heritage, but it stands a very good chance of making people think he is a racist.
And those people are overly judgmental fools (to put it mildly).
As symbol only has whatever power or meaning you give to it. For example, while you might look at a swastika and see a symbol of Nazism, a Hindu would see instead a symbol of the evolution of the universe, or a Buddhist would see a symbol of strength or intelligence. In the early 1900s, it was often used as a good luck charm for pilots. Other groups (including certain Native American tribes) give it still other meanings.
So, if you saw a person wearing a swastika, how do you know what symbolism they impart to it? Just because you perceive it as a racist symbol, does that mean that a Hindu or Buddhist is racist? No. That is simply your assumption, and ultimately it is a baseless assumption made in ignorance.
Similarly, if you assume that someone is racist just because they display a Confederate flag, then you are only showing your own ignorance and poor judgment. You are, in effect, jumping to conclusions about people and trying to make them fit into your own little molds. Could they be racist? Of course, they could. However, a Confederate flag is not proof of that any more than a swastika is proof of being a Nazi.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jek_Windu
Registered:
Jan '03
|
Date Posted:
6/17 10:14am
Subject:
RE: The States' Right to Secede
|
|
Exactly. Judging on those parameters is completely illogical and arrogant to the point of idiocy. But that's how many people do think of such symbols, and to ignore that reality is just as foolish as pinning your thoughts on someone else's symbols.
-----signature-----
Tryanids: You don't have enough bullets! Imperial Guard: YES WE DO! R.I.P. Trini
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
