Ralph Nader on Vermont Secession

[Rickdeckard2020]

Asking permission to secede is utter BS. Thats like saying you're free but you have to work for your present employer and cant quit unless he gives you permission, if you are not free to leave you might as well be a slave, plantation owners could give slaves their freedom so all they needed was for the slave owner to grant his permission, thats not freedom. This is 21st century, A state should be allowed to leave a union or federation without reprisals or shenanigans

[Ameer18]

@Rickdeckard2020 if you wish to sepearte thats on u people just don't expect the other 49 states to just keel over and let u or the rest of the world to recognize u which like most other breakaway lands do not.

[WeddingCrashersFull]

The Constitution DOES NOT forbid any state from seceding nor give the Feds the power to wage war if they do. The Constitution does state "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[AustinW90]

Ralph Nader: Imperial Federal Supremacist

[Ameer18]

@AustinW90 republic of vermont= white seperatist nationalist state. So i wouldn't talk.

[ErikMartin81]

It would be deeply immoral for the federal government to force Vermont to remain in the Union, if they gain public support for secession. We all have the natural right to self-determination.

[agricolae101]

states joined the union of their own volition...why shouldn't it be easy to later say,

"hey this club ain't for me"?

[LibertarianBiker]

Where does the constitution say that a state has to apply for permission to secede? Article and Section number please. Nader does not understand the constitution. Lincolns war was illegal.

[meetman3]

You are right! The people of Vermont has a right of secession. Every state has. So if the people of Vermont wishes to leave the Union...the first thing that they need to do is to say a great big "Im Sorry" to the people of the Southern States who they killed for doing the same thing in 1861.

[brycejacksoncvt]

@meetman3 - while i feel your sentiment and admit a bit of irony there is a core difference. While Lincoln called the secession of the southern states illegal, war itself wasnt proclaimed till southern forces attcked federal property , in other words , they advocated for a violent removal rather then a peaceful one . VT wants to peacefully remove itself from the Union and keep good relations with the US

[MohammadX101]

If Canada had invaded, looted and occupied the US then that wouldn't have been a "civil war" but war. The US didn't want to join a union with Canada.

Nader is having no choice but to show more of his real face.

[agricolae101]

@MohammadX101 The US invaded Canada before...with the idea of bringing them into this federal union

Manifest destiny and all that stuff

[Hashishin13]

@agricolae101 Its a bit trickier then that, they invaded what was a collection of Britain's territories much like they were only 20 years or so before. Back then I don't think the colonies had representation and so it was sort of like an emancipation war, I think at that point if the citizens of what would have become Canada had voted themselves out of the union, I think they would have been let go.

In the west and south against the Indians and Mexicans is another story...

[overmind25]

Nader is wrong. Who cares about the income of the Civil War? What if the US lost against the British Empire? Should no one secede later on?

[overmind25]

*outcome

[Argonaut22j]

A voice of sanity! Finally.

[GaGirlie777]

So the mention of "secession" gets some of the NWO and their puppets nervous.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Oh great! So Ralph would invade Vermont and kill hundreds of thousands of people because he believes they can't secede. Nice!

That just goes to show you how all of this talk about "democracy" and "self-government" is TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT!

"We believe in freedom and democracy and self-government and home-rule and human rights...and if you secede, we will kill every last one of you." Why? Because people chose to exercise their right to self-government!

Ralph the tyrant. Who knew?

[quillinhand]

I don't think he ever said anything remotely sounding like invading Vermont, never mind killing thousands of people.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

No, he didn't say that, but he doesn't have to. Secession is prevented only by the threat of force.

We do not have a society based on voluntary association. The political structure is based solely on force and the threat of force.

When he says secession is illegal, he's saying that self-government is illegal for any particular group except the group which he endorses. So how does one punish criminals who secede except by war or other severe retaliatory measures which cause suffering?

[Southernjuggalo63]

@quillinhand he said they could not seceded hence if need be he would invade to keep in the union as lincoln did

[GaGirlie777]

Really. I can't believe he mentioned Civil War. That was a threat. Ralph Nader is just a NWO puppet to help sway elections in the correct outcome. He helped Bush get in. That's Nader's role. He doesn't want any real solutions like secession.

[AngloYankee]

Seceding because things dont go your way is not a solution. Secession is not a right either.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Of course secession is a right! How do you think the US formed? Read the Declaration of Independence for cryin' out loud. What the colonists had to deal with from the British is nothing compared to what this gov't has become.

If secession is not a right, then freedom is not a right. I mean, what the hell are you talking about? People should submit to ANYTHING? Giving our money to corrupt bankers so they can fatten their insolvent companies and earn billions more while we slave? Wake up!

[AngloYankee]

See the problem is you don't realize that there is a difference between the perceived right of secession and the natural right of revolution. YOU are the one that needs to do research, not me.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Oh really? What's the difference?

So you are claiming there is no right of secession? Based on what?

[AngloYankee]

You can look up the words yourself, it's really not that hard.

As for what I'm basing this off, well you can start with the "father of the constitution".

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Will you claim that the people are bound to the Federal gov't by the Constitution but the Federal gov't is NOT also bound by it? Will you claim that it is a contract? If so, is it not breached when the Feds break it and assume powers not granted by the people, which amounts to tyranny?

Secession is both a legal right and a natural right in the face of tyranny. To contradict that is to make all these words meaningless on their face.

[AngloYankee]

It's not legal. It wasn't legal in 1861 and it is most certainly not legal now. Again stop confusing secession with revolution. Revolution is a natural right, not secession.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

"It's not legal." Says who? You didn't address the issue. Is it "legal" for the federal gov't to assert powers it was never granted by the people? What's the context for "legal" here?

Also, was it legal when West Virginia seceded from VA? Maine from MA? TN from NC?

You refer to Madison. Are you claiming Madison thought it was illegal to secede in the face of tyranny? That makes no sense.

[AngloYankee]

""It's not legal." Says who? You didn't address the issue."

You can start with Texas V white. If you actually knew anything then you wouldnt be asking.

"Is it "legal" for the federal gov't to assert powers it was never granted by the people? What's the context for "legal" here?"

Stop babbling

"Also, was it legal when West Virginia seceded from VA? Maine from MA? TN from NC?"

We're talking about state seceding from the fed government, so this is irrelevant.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

I asked you if it is legal for the federal gov't to assert powers not granted by the people.

Your response: "Stop babbling."

Obviously you think it's "legal" for the federal gov't to act tyrannically and violate the law. This makes your argument about the legality of secession moot.

If you're going to make tyranny and illegality the standard of legality, then there's nothing to talk about.

[AngloYankee]

Again if it were about tyranny then it would be about the right to revolution then we wouldnt be having this discussion, but it's about the false idea of the right to secession.

[AngloYankee]

"You refer to Madison. Are you claiming Madison thought it was illegal to secede in the face of tyranny? That makes no sense."

It makes no sense because you're ignorant on Madisons beliefs.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

I'm sure you will not find Madison supporting tyranny. You think the founding fathers would support the idea that it's "illegal" to secede from a tyrannical gov't after they just did the same themselves? Ridiculous.

[AngloYankee]

Tyranny? We're not talking about Tyranny. We're talking about secession. You're right Madison would not support a tyrannical government, but people don't secede from a tyrannical government they engage in revolution.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

"People don't secede from a tyrannical government, they engage in revolution."

No, dude, people secede from tyranny all the time. Former Soviet Union states. The Confederate States.

You're not making any sense.

Take care. I'm done with this.

[AngloYankee]

The Soviet Union dissolved with the consent of the states, it was not a unilateral secession. Also the states that seceded did so legally. And Gorbachev was hardly a tyrant. The man has won a nobel peace prize. Not a valid example.

The Confederate states was an abomination. If they felt they truly had the right to secede then they should have consented to the other states, and if that didnt work, then appealed to the supreme court.

[AngloYankee]

Maybe you should use your brain once in a while, then things will start to make more sense to you.

You were 'done with this' since the beginning. that's why all you could do was propose question, because you had no counter argument.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Your idea of legality is that the federal government is not bound by law. So what's the point of talking after that?

You believe they can do whatever they please and that people must either submit or revolt because of this absurd premise of yours regarding secession being "illegal" under all circumstances!

Fine. If that's what you believe, you have a right to express it. I said I'm done because there's nothing left for me to say on the subject.

[AngloYankee]

You're twisting my words around. The government has limits, but just because the government doesn't submit to YOUR every will doesn't give you the right to secede. Not even Jefferson a hardcore states right advocate would agree with you. You have the right to revolution only under tyranny.

[AngloYankee]

other than that it becomes anarchy.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Good! A voluntary society is preferable to slavery any day!

[OgeronimonominoregO]

When I asked you if the federal gov't was bound by law, you said "stop babbling." Now what am I supposed to gather from that except that you do not believe that this institution is bound by law?

I don't want gov't to submit to my will. I want them to leave me alone.

Tell me where you find the authority in the Constitution for them to raid the Treasury in order to give trillions of dollars to privately owned banks.

Is that not lawlessness? If not, then what the hell is?

[whynotflip]

WELL SAID! beautiful! perfect! you win the argument hands down. love it love it love it.

[slownoman]

Give one example, you cousin fucking fool. the USSR ain't it. What, Yugoslavia? That wasn't a revolution? Boy howdy, you shits really are dumber than Larry the Cable Guy. Fuck the CSA.

[Ameer18]

@OgeronimonominoregO uh this is what every country on the fucking planet who's leadership isn't stupid would do ya redneck retard! Look no further then chechnya in russia or northern ireland in the UK. They r democratic but diddn't tolerate seperatism nor should they.

[pocoapoco2]

Actually, I've heard that the state of Texas is legally allowed to seceed. I've not verified that fact yet, though.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

Any state can secede. The federal gov't is rogue. It does not follow the Constitution, which is the law.

[truthvspropaganda]

the only way to fix things now, as in today, is to leave the union. because the government has had more then enough time to "fix itself", and the truth is its too corrupt to ever do that! its all about money and power today, its not a government that works for the people, its a government that works for world domination! because if you research this on your own, youll find out the only people that profit from our "problems", (war in Iraq) are the "Rockafellers") the "big shots" The Bush family!