-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Will Montana secede from the Union?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
- Status
BigBossman
Active Member
I'm not advocating it completely, but I would say that if a state were to do that, they would need to be very organized. The only way I consider seceeding is if there was absolutely no possible way to get proper representation in Washington. By that I don't just mean in the House & Senate, but also getting a presidential candidate that can not only win, but is the definition of what a conservative should be.
If our government were to suddenly become a dictatorship, my first plan would be to fight & take back control of our government & return it to being a democratic republic. Should that fail, my second plan would be to form a new nation by seceeding &/or declaring our independence once again.
While I share their frustration, I don't want to disown my American citizenship. Seceeding for me would only be a last resort.
If our government were to suddenly become a dictatorship, my first plan would be to fight & take back control of our government & return it to being a democratic republic. Should that fail, my second plan would be to form a new nation by seceeding &/or declaring our independence once again.
While I share their frustration, I don't want to disown my American citizenship. Seceeding for me would only be a last resort.
Which has nothing to do with this.
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
Hmmm, I was under the impression that was already the case.
Doesn't matter how many want to. They can't. That argument has been heard before SCOTUS on numerous occaisions, and SCOTUS has consistently concluded that statehood is permanent. It's a matter of solidly settled law. That doesn't even begin to address what was noted earlier: that over 600,000 American lives were lost settling that issue over over 140 years ago.
Good luck with that. 20 states have bills lying dormant that move to succeed and have claimed their own soveriegnty. We do not want to just dismiss this. And if a state votes for succession who is going to stop it?
Last edited by a moderator:
That may be true. However, it is also understood that the Constitution is a matter of solidly settled law and yet it is blatantly disregarded and attacked. Unless SCOTUS has a higher standing than the Constitution, then it too can be disregarded.
Robert Snow
New Member
Maybe Bro. Curtis will lead the charge! :laugh:
The url didn't note any threat to secede.
140 years ago? Like yesterday!
Exactly how might Montana pull it off? First, the insurgents convince the retired Montana citizens to stop cashing their Social Security checks and start paying cash for their medical bills . . . . <G>
140 years ago? Like yesterday!
Exactly how might Montana pull it off? First, the insurgents convince the retired Montana citizens to stop cashing their Social Security checks and start paying cash for their medical bills . . . . <G>
Nonsequitur
New Member
Who cares what side of the coin that we're using is in the WH?
The real problem is that our government stopped listening to "We the People". When the government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and is instead ruled by a class of career politicians, then one has to expect that one day, the people of this great country will say no more, and the people will do what they think is right for the people; to maintain its independence, freedom and free interprise.
Obama campaigned saying he will give us the public option and that he would spread the wealth. America went to the polls and made him our leader.
Why do you say government isn't listening to the people? Are you saying the minority should have more say then the majority?
Who cares about the WH if we get our own country....I would like to be proud of my country again, not seeing people living in fear of government thugs wrecking our lives and economy and livelihoods. The anger Americans are feeling now is palpable. Everyone I talk to from the grocery store, gas station, church, wherever. People are angry and upset. Obama is beginning to be hated in the street - far worse than GW Bush ever was. This government is pushing people to the brink and that may end in up in lots of calls for secession or worse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nonsequitur
New Member
I have no idea what you mean by "public option".
Spread whose wealth and what gives him the right to do so?
Yes, he was elected the president.
Why do I say that the government isn't listening to the people?...."The government that governs least, governs best."
Am I saying the minority should have more say than the majority? No. But that does not mean that the minority should not have a voice and should not have to participate in something that they believe is immoral, illegal, against their religion, or that places undue hardship on them.
Remember this next time you try to say that voting for the President does not mean you support all of his policies such as abortion.
The fear people are living in is drummed up by the right. Since God didn't give me the spirit of fear, I refuse to claim it. I don't see the majority of Americans as scared and most are not even politically concerned.
As for Obama being hated, he is certainly hated by the right but this is nothing new. They hated him before he was president.
Calls for secession are from those not happy with what the majority want. They call the majority anti-American. I am under the belief that what the majority wants IS American and anyone not with the majority are anti-American.
The left also cried when they didn't get their way so I guess that's just how America works.
Government run health insurance.
The majority of people who voted him in to be president.
This is your opinion and we al have one. Unfortunately, you and I only have one vote which is the worth of our opinion.
I agree, this is why the majority has extended their hand and offered the minority a seat at the table of discussion. However, the minority is saying we don't want discussion, we want you to abandon your plans and do it our way. Bipartisanship has become a word the means, "they won't abandon their proposal and accept ours".
I think we if we get back to the original definition of bipartisanship we can have legislation that neither side is totally happy with but both can accept. Until then, the majority will get their way.
- Status