Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:26:57 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:


snipped - to show that it really can be done...

On the other hand, Montana may secede:

"Various Montana politicians have signed a resolution arguing that
anything other than an individual-right interpretation of the Second
Amendment ... would violate the compact between Montana and the U.S."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125075.html

I like those guys - may have to relocate


Ha-ha! Is that "Dixie" I hear them whistling? d8-)

I'm sure that any court, anywhere, would declare the "compact" moot. As a
condition of statehood they had to declare that they would adhere to the US
Constitution -- including amendments, Supreme Court decisions, etc. Where
their constitution conflicts with the current Court declarations of the US
Constitution, the supremacy clause comes into effect: the US Constitution
trumps.

But it's an entertaining idea.

--
Ed Huntress



We had the same fantasy here in Texas when I was a kid.

As the only state that was an independent nation it was a fun fantasy to
play with. But civics class in high school ruined the whole thing!

Darned education...


Richard


I wonder if anyone would care to point out the portions of the
Constition and so forth, where states are forbidden to bail out of a
tyrannical Union?

That rat******* Lincoln used the Might is Right model, because there
was no such prohibition to be found.

Gunner


In the case of Texas, the agreement was that we can split up into as
many as seven additional states - if desired - in orger to counteact
and voting advantage of the northern counties - oh, sorry - states.

However...
If the western states were to actually thimb their noses at the union
I'd bet my boots they would find a surprising amount of support from
Texans (if not Texas itself).

But, would that ever really happen?

What's to gain - what's to lose?