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 (339818)	6/8/2007 2:32:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570918

and it doesn't say a state can't leave. Exactly. Its ambiguous. Reasonable people can have different opinions on the issue. Its a little unclear exactly how it was understood at the time of the signing. The constitution itself certainly doesn't make it clear. Even if it was somewhat "understood", absent concrete language to the effect that states could secede, its a bit much to say any effort to stop them had no justification, and was clearly an aggressive and immoral act. Ideally such questions are worked out peacefully. Unfortunately neither side was very patient in this case, and so you get more dead Americans then from every other war in our history combined.

To: longnshort who wrote (339818)	6/8/2007 7:38:54 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570918

"It was understood at the time that a state could leave" No it wasn't. Now, the right explicitly existed under the Articles of Confederation. But, it wasn't in the Constitution. Nor was it in the Federalist Papers. Now, the Federalist Papers do talk a lot about how weak the Confederation was and how it failed to protect the Union. So the fact that they did not put the right of secession into the Constitution can only be taken as a deliberate action.