Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (236007)	6/6/2005 4:53:16 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572719

"To my knowledge the only that can leave the Union of it so wishes is TX." Actually it can't either. However, there are certain scenarios where it can be construed that the treaty under which it became a state might be invalidated thus rendering it independent again. These scenarios are usually the underpinning of the periodic petitions that float around for Texas Independence. And yes, the Civil War was primarily economic and cultural. The "Peculiar Institution" was just the spark. We were headed for it even if slavery had never existed.

To: tejek who wrote (236007)	6/9/2005 8:45:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572719

Of course they did not have that right. No of course about it. The constitution itself doesn't address the issue. The constitution is an agreement among the states who where formerly sovereign. If that was not the case it would be reasonable to conclude that cessesion is only allowed if it is explicitly mentioned. But since the states formed the federal government and where not the creation of it, and where sovereign until they agreed to ban together the issue is ambiguous. Tim