Do States Have The Right To Secession & State Sovereignty? - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: Do States Have The Right To Secession & State Sovereignty?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I think that it is only a matter of time before a multitude of States declare they are seceding from the Socialist States of America; because they cannot afford any more hope & change and progressivism...
    Bankrupting America
    Hear ya loud and clear. I gave up hope and he kept the change.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    [QUOTE=Bohemian;210893]I think that it is only a matter of time before a multitude of States declare they are seceding from the Socialist States of America; because they cannot afford any more hope & change and progressivism...
    Bankrupting America

    God I hope so...
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  4. #33
    Does that mean a socialist leaning state could secede and become a providence of China?

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    Yes...
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  6. #35
    Even with all the things that Lincoln did wrong I cannot help but think that the South would have been better off if he had not been assinated. His goal was to preserve the union at all costs and I do not think this it was his agenda to punish the South like it was and still is being punished today. Under the 1964 civil rights act (I believe that is the one) that requires the equal representation of voting districts certain states were singled out by having much greater restrictions placed on them in any redistricting even down to school zones. It just happens that the states singled out are the same states that were members of the Confederacy. This may seem like a trivial matter but when a school district has to get approval not only from the Justice Department but also the NAACP before a new school can be built and submit all data on how the new school and location will effect any racial balance the costs are millions of dollars over the states in funds that could be better used not to mention the additional costs of bussing students all over the area just to keep the balance at some arbitrary number.

    Southerners thought that Sherman's march would be then end of the punishment but found that it was only the beginning. The ironic thing is that in the end blacks in the South have probably received more of the punishment than whites by the very things designed to punish the whites. Some blacks have realized this and taken advantage of the offerings presented to them but too many have just used it as an excuse to slip further into the cesspool of crime and government handout dependency along with a growing number of whites. The present housing market crisis was not a total result of government requirements to provide those who could not afford homes one but the flames were fanned and fueled by the programs aimed at blacks to which both blacks and whites not knowing what they were doing taking advantage of requirements handed down by those same people who supposedly look after them in any redistricting change.

    There will be no secession by any state because no state can muster enough of the people of the state together to realize what is happening. Just look around at any car lot. You no longer can ask a salesman how much a car costs, you can only ask the finance manager how much the monthly payments are and if you press hard enough he might even tell you for how long. Do you think that person is interested in the right of a state to leave the Union when it may involve losing his monthly welfare check? /{Rambled enough**/

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Under the 1964 civil rights act (I believe that is the one)
    Civil Rights act of 1964, has nothing to do with voting, redistricting of legilative seats, or school districts. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimnation in employment on the basis or Race, Religion, Creed, Color, National Origin, or Gender. The Act also deals with harrasment on the basis of the above. The Act also contains a reasonable accomidations clause with respect to religion.

    On the whole the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been a good and fairly applied piece of legislation.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    Civil Rights act of 1964, has nothing to do with voting, redistricting of legilative seats, or school districts. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimnation in employment on the basis or Race, Religion, Creed, Color, National Origin, or Gender. The Act also deals with harrasment on the basis of the above. The Act also contains a reasonable accomidations clause with respect to religion.

    On the whole the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been a good and fairly applied piece of legislation.

    Then which act was it that did away with the one Senator per county in SC and screwed up the entire deal. I do remember it came up for renewal in the 90's and Strom Thurmond said he would support it only if it applied to all states equally and that was immediately shot down.

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Then which act was it that did away with the one Senator per county in SC and screwed up the entire deal. I do remember it came up for renewal in the 90's and Strom Thurmond said he would support it only if it applied to all states equally and that was immediately shot down.
    It was a court case IIRC, not a piece of legislation.

  10. #39
    I tried to post this last night but the site went down or my service one or the other, Anyway as a follow up to article VIII of the 1964 act the 1965 Voting Rights Act spelled it out. Later there was a court case based upon this act that really screwed up the redistricting called the "One man one vote" trial if i remember correctly.

    I remember going to vote in 1972 when we were still using the old paper ballots. There were people standing outside the voting place giving out sample ballotts with holes cut into them. All you had to do was put the sample ballot over the actual ballot and color in the holes cut out to cast your vote for who they wanted elected. This was for those who either could not read or decided to allow someone else to make their decisions for them.

    ===============================
    Found it, the Voting rights act of 1965:



    Voting Rights Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Key Points,


    A covered jurisdiction that seeks to obtain Section 5 Preclearance, either from the United States Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, must demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of discriminating based on race or color. In some cases, they must also show that the proposed change does not have the purpose or effect of discriminating against a "language minority group."


    The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes are equally accessible to minority voters.[12] This section is permanent and does not require renewal.


    States that must be precleared:


    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Georgia, except for the city of Sandy Springs
    Louisiana
    Mississippi
    South Carolina
    Texas
    Virginia, except for fourteen counties (Amherst, (Augusta, Botetourt, Essex, Frederick, Greene, Middlesex, (Page, Pulaski, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, (Washington, and Warren) and four independent cities (Fairfax, Harrisonburg, Salem, and Winchester

    Example:

    The 2006 extension of the preclearance procedure was challenged in a lawsuit, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, which was argued before the Supreme Court on April 30, 2009.[26] The lawsuit was brought by a municipal water district in Texas, which elects members to a water board. The district does not register voters, nor has it been accused of discrimination. However, it wished to move the voting location from a private home to a public school; the preclearance procedure required it to seek approval from the Justice Department, because Texas is a covered jurisdiction under Section 5.[27] While the Court did not declare preclearance unconstitutional, the decision redefined the law to allow any political subdivision covered by Section 5 to request exemption from federal review

  11. Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Enslaving people was consdered being in the right? I'm sorry, weren't those slaves protected by a consitiutional right? Look up the Dred Scott case.
    The slavery issue is minor compared to the core issues of states rights. The North wasn't much better as far as slavery goes, they were barely the lesser of 2 evils. Just enough better that they could use it to *claim* moral superiority in that one particular case, while trampling on the rest...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast