 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Interesting take on Brexit in light of our own Civil War... |
Aaron Scott |
| The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
12/12/18 7:52 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Interesting take on Brexit in light of our own Civil War... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed. |
When was this treaty ratified and who signed onto it? I know the EU Charter has a secession clause. The UK Parliament is usurping authority it does not have. The people vote to stay or leave, that is my understanding.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
12/12/18 1:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Resident... |
Aaron Scott |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed. |
When was this treaty ratified and who signed onto it? I know the EU Charter has a secession clause. The UK Parliament is usurping authority it does not have. The people vote to stay or leave, that is my understanding. |
No, my take is that the SOUTH would have argued that the situation had changed so drastically that is should have been permitted to leave the Union.
I don't know that anything had changed drastically enough to allow for that, but it was at least an argument.
I imagine if the U.S. had known that 600,000 men would have died in the prosecution of the war, they would not have been for the war (nor, I imagine, would the South have been for it). |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
12/12/18 1:27 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | | The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states where a party wants to withdraw unilaterally from a treaty that is silent on secession, there are only two cases where withdrawal is allowed: where all parties recognise an informal right to do so and where the situation has changed so drastically, that the obligations of a signatory have been radically transformed. |
When was this treaty ratified and who signed onto it? I know the EU Charter has a secession clause. The UK Parliament is usurping authority it does not have. The people vote to stay or leave, that is my understanding. |
No, my take is that the SOUTH would have argued that the situation had changed so drastically that is should have been permitted to leave the Union.
I don't know that anything had changed drastically enough to allow for that, but it was at least an argument.
I imagine if the U.S. had known that 600,000 men would have died in the prosecution of the war, they would not have been for the war (nor, I imagine, would the South have been for it). |
Sure things had changed. A party was coming to power that boasted it would do whatever it took, including defying the Supreme Court, to water down southern representation in Congress and, by default, the Electoral College. The South, realizing they would economically benefit by being free from the North, logically voted to secede. The Constitution's silence on the issue of secession meant that the Feds had no power to stop them.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
12/12/18 5:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
