There would be no war if the government or property owner in question
is allowed to secede. As Jeff pointed out the constitution does not
forbid a state from seceding, some of the states clearly reserved
that right as a condition of signing the
constitution.
Even if prepretual union meant that secession was not allowed
under the Articles the Constitution was not an amendment of the
Articles, so the Articles has no bearing on the contractual
relationship of the Constitution. You also need to take into account
the words in some of the state constitution which basically reconizes
secession and even dissolvement of the state
government.
It also pays to understand that the state governments were
not governments of We the people as in all the voting age adults and
thus the federal government was not by consent of we the people since
the state governments were not. I think in 1790 less than a third of
the voting age adults agreed to state hood in my state and in some
counties it was much less than that.Best I remember the majority who
could vote carried in only the Eastern Counties of TN, the middle
counties and western counties it did not even carry a majority of
those who could vote. Of course the Eastern Counties had the most
voters.--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here's the problem. The Articles of Confederation or association
states
> that the former colonies which became states were a "perpetual
union" and then
> the successor constitution described the states as a "more perfect
union".
> Then there is the 10th amendment to the constitution which sets a
mechanism on
> certain things that have to go through congress.
>
> So what is the mechanism for secession short of civil war? David
H.
>
>
> In a message dated 9/25/05 7:22:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> I think the right of secession extends even lower than the state
> governments all the way down to a single property owner. Now the
> Merriam- Webster defines sovereighty as the ablity to govern
without
> external force, that can be a country of 300 million, a state of
> 500,000, a country with the population of Lieninstein, an area the
size
> of the Vatican ( which I think is 80 acres) or even a single
family
> with less than 5 acres if that family can govern without external
> force. If that family runs the Bates Motel and they knock off
their
> customers it is very likely they can not govern without external
force.
> If they run a nice place then I see no reason why they should not
be
> reconnized as a sovereirnity ( a mans home is his castle and thus
his
> sovereign domain) The right of sovereignty and nullification by
juries
> and nullfication of federal laws by state governments are
necessary
> checks against power.---
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/VpgUKB/pzNLAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
