Cyprus-Forum.com

[Filitsa]

Federation is very hard to stomach. Look at the EE, where less than 1% of the population are stalling the process. Even the USA where all speak the same language, federation went through a turmoil. Federation was achieved after a bloody civil war and as a result, two important points were answered.

Hello again, Bananiot. With all due respect, federaton was not achieved after the Civil War. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, the federation had existed for 73 years. The U.S. Constitution, the basis of change from confederation to federation, went into effect in 1788.

The two points that were answered were (1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states and (2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation.

Bananiot, what is your understanding of these two issues?

[Filitsa]

The two points that were answered were (1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states and (2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation.

Bananiot,

(1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states

Federal Constitutions will always override any state laws that are not in compliance Federal Laws, which on many occasions, states do pass laws that are in violation of Federal Laws, but ultimately they are either struck down by Federal courts or by the Supreme Court of the land. Each individual states have a great deal of autonomy from the Federal Government to run their states the way they want, which are voted by all citizens from those states and through the state legislators, as long as they are in compliance with the Federal Laws.

One citizenship, One Sovereignty.!!

(2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation

I have below given you a ruling by the Supreme Court regarding a state wanting to secede from the United states. I have only given you a small piece of it, but if you want to read the whole thing, you have the link below. You will find it is not possible, even though, there are mechanisms in place that can permit such a move, but you will have a better chance winning the lottery each week all by yourself for the next 100 years. If it was the case, California, the world 7th largest economy would have said "goodbye" to the Union long time ago.

It also touches on what it means to be a "Confederation", which is what the Annan Plan was all about, which you fail to accept this fact every time and this is the reason as to why the TC's want a Confederation and not a True Federation.

U.S. Supreme Court
STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)

TEXAS
v.
WHITE ET AL.

December Term, 1868

Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4/700.html

Kikapu, all this case says is that a state can't secede simply by saying so. Reread the last line.

Keep in mind that while this case was going down, so was the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by each of the constituent states, ratified by the necessary majority in July of 1868 with the remainder to follow. Section 1 of this amendment, in part, came as a result of the Civil War and the need to address secession. Section 1 only implicitly addresses secession. It has been construed to mean that by virtue of being a constituent state, said state is part of the Union and secession is not an option. Nowhere in the Constitution is it explicitly expressed that secession is illegal. Interesting, isn't it? After all, the U.S. has a history of secession: the Colonies seceded from England, and then a majority of the states seceded from the Confederacy. Why? ... Because they wanted a stronger federal government, and the nature of confederacy lacks a strong federal government, so what did they do next? They enhanced the powers of the federal government while maintaining states' rights by replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution - a beautiful thing. This is what Cyprus should fight for.

[Kikapu]

The two points that were answered were (1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states and (2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation.

Bananiot,

(1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states

Federal Constitutions will always override any state laws that are not in compliance Federal Laws, which on many occasions, states do pass laws that are in violation of Federal Laws, but ultimately they are either struck down by Federal courts or by the Supreme Court of the land. Each individual states have a great deal of autonomy from the Federal Government to run their states the way they want, which are voted by all citizens from those states and through the state legislators, as long as they are in compliance with the Federal Laws.

One citizenship, One Sovereignty.!!

(2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation

I have below given you a ruling by the Supreme Court regarding a state wanting to secede from the United states. I have only given you a small piece of it, but if you want to read the whole thing, you have the link below. You will find it is not possible, even though, there are mechanisms in place that can permit such a move, but you will have a better chance winning the lottery each week all by yourself for the next 100 years. If it was the case, California, the world 7th largest economy would have said "goodbye" to the Union long time ago.

It also touches on what it means to be a "Confederation", which is what the Annan Plan was all about, which you fail to accept this fact every time and this is the reason as to why the TC's want a Confederation and not a True Federation.

U.S. Supreme Court
STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)

TEXAS
v.
WHITE ET AL.

December Term, 1868

Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4/700.html

Kikapu, all this case says is that a state can't secede simply by saying so. Reread the last line.

Keep in mind that while this case was going down, so was the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by each of the constituent states, ratified by the necessary majority in July of 1868 with the remainder to follow. Section 1 of this amendment, in part, came as a result of the Civil War and the need to address secession. Section 1 only implicitly addresses secession. It has been construed to mean that by virtue of being a constituent state, said state is part of the Union and secession is not an option. Nowhere in the Constitution is it explicitly expressed that secession is illegal. Interesting, isn't it? After all, the U.S. has a history of secession: the Colonies seceded from England, and then a majority of the states seceded from the Confederacy. Why? ... Because they wanted a stronger federal government, and the nature of confederacy lacks a strong federal government, so what did they do next? They enhanced the powers of the federal government while maintaining states' rights by replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution - a beautiful thing. This is what Cyprus should fight for.

I just saw your post Filitsa.....sorry.!

I was just trying to tell Bananiot, that in a Federation, despite there are very difficult and very hard ways for a state to secede from a Federation Union, it would be much easier seceding from a Confederacy Union. This is why, it is important, as you pointed out, that for Cyprus we have a True Federation with strong central government to make it difficult for anyone wanting to walk away from the Union, as suppose to what the Annan Plan 2004 gave, which Bananiot supported, the TC's and Turkey, which was a Confederation with a very weak central government, and even today, Turkey only asks for a Confederation and not a Federation. One can draw their own conclusions as to why that is. Ironically, I have not come across any of the NeoPartitionist ever supporting a True Federation, but very happy to embrace the AP and it's Confederation for Cyprus.

OK, I have reached my conclusion on why Turkey demands a Confederation over Federation for Cyprus, thanks to the choices of the two options the NeoPartitionist would want..

[Filitsa]

The two points that were answered were (1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states and (2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation.

Bananiot,

(1) whether the federal laws stand above the laws of the states

Federal Constitutions will always override any state laws that are not in compliance Federal Laws, which on many occasions, states do pass laws that are in violation of Federal Laws, but ultimately they are either struck down by Federal courts or by the Supreme Court of the land. Each individual states have a great deal of autonomy from the Federal Government to run their states the way they want, which are voted by all citizens from those states and through the state legislators, as long as they are in compliance with the Federal Laws.

One citizenship, One Sovereignty.!!

(2) whether some states can actually defect, leave, the federation

I have below given you a ruling by the Supreme Court regarding a state wanting to secede from the United states. I have only given you a small piece of it, but if you want to read the whole thing, you have the link below. You will find it is not possible, even though, there are mechanisms in place that can permit such a move, but you will have a better chance winning the lottery each week all by yourself for the next 100 years. If it was the case, California, the world 7th largest economy would have said "goodbye" to the Union long time ago.

It also touches on what it means to be a "Confederation", which is what the Annan Plan was all about, which you fail to accept this fact every time and this is the reason as to why the TC's want a Confederation and not a True Federation.

U.S. Supreme Court
STATE OF TEXAS v. WHITE, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)

TEXAS
v.
WHITE ET AL.

December Term, 1868

Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4/700.html

Kikapu, all this case says is that a state can't secede simply by saying so. Reread the last line.

Keep in mind that while this case was going down, so was the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution by each of the constituent states, ratified by the necessary majority in July of 1868 with the remainder to follow. Section 1 of this amendment, in part, came as a result of the Civil War and the need to address secession. Section 1 only implicitly addresses secession. It has been construed to mean that by virtue of being a constituent state, said state is part of the Union and secession is not an option. Nowhere in the Constitution is it explicitly expressed that secession is illegal. Interesting, isn't it? After all, the U.S. has a history of secession: the Colonies seceded from England, and then a majority of the states seceded from the Confederacy. Why? ... Because they wanted a stronger federal government, and the nature of confederacy lacks a strong federal government, so what did they do next? They enhanced the powers of the federal government while maintaining states' rights by replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution - a beautiful thing. This is what Cyprus should fight for.

I just saw your post Filitsa.....sorry.!

No apology necessary, Kikapu.

I was just trying to tell Bananiot, that in a Federation, despite there are very difficult and very hard ways for a state to secede from a Federation Union, it would be much easier seceding from a Confederacy Union. This is why, it is important, as you pointed out, that for Cyprus we have a True Federation with strong central government to make it difficult for anyone wanting to walk away from the Union, as suppose to what the Annan Plan 2004 gave, which Bananiot supported, the TC's and Turkey, which was a Confederation with a very weak central government, and even today, Turkey only asks for a Confederation and not a Federation. One can draw their own conclusions as to why that is. Ironically, I have not come across any of the NeoPartitionist ever supporting a True Federation, but very happy to embrace the AP and it's Confederation for Cyprus.

I'm pleased that we agree. It's not perfect. Nothing is; but it's the best of all possible worlds.

OK, I have reached my conclusion on why Turkey demands a Confederation over Federation for Cyprus, thanks to the choices of the two options the NeoPartitionist would want..

Had you asked, I could have told you that.

[Kikapu]

OK, I have reached my conclusion on why Turkey demands a Confederation over Federation for Cyprus, thanks to the choices of the two options the NeoPartitionist would want..

Had you asked, I could have told you that.

Thanks Filitsa.! I just need to be quicker next time with my replies while there still is a Cyprus Problems.!