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: longnshort who wrote (339811)	6/8/2007 2:07:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570981

The constitution doesn't state that a state may withdrawal by unilateral declaration of the state's legislature. In legal/constitutional terms the best that can be said for your case is that its ambiguous. Given that it is ambiguous, its a bit silly to call the lack of immediate evacuation from pre-existing military facilities and "invasion". In fact even if the Constitution did say that a state could withdraw and that as soon as the decision was promulgated the state was independent, the soldiers still wouldn't technically be invading (although you could call their presence, a military occupation). In the Civil War, both sides ignored the ambiguity, the South insisting they had the right, the North insisting that no such right existed.