Calls for Secession

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

So far, residents from 30+ states have written to the White House requesting secession from the U.S. What are your thoughts on both the "feasibility" and "consequences" for states that hypothetically succeed (cuz we all know that's not gonna happen)?

The first "what if" that comes to my mind is, imagine N. Carolina just after a major weather event (or natural disaster), without FEMA....

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

=Zoomer= said:
So far, residents from 30+ states have written to the White House requesting secession from the U.S. What are your thoughts on both the "feasibility" and "consequences" for states that hypothetically succeed (cuz we all know that's not gonna happen)?

The first "what if" that comes to my mind is, imagine N. Carolina just after a major weather event (or natural disaster), without FEMA....

I sincerely doubt any state legislature would seriously consider succession.
The impact from Federal Program support would destroy citizen medical initiatives, Crime intervention, infrastructure improvement, utility management, Military (both financial and physical), and the list goes on for pages....

The first State to go this route...will be the last, and though the country would allow them back in, they will be the prodigal child for quite some time.

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

I find it a bit humorous the these people (not states) would take a course of action that is explicitly deemed unconstitutional. I thought they were "all about the constitution"???? States do have a "natural right of revolution", but secession is unconstitutional.

That said, someone (i don't know the name) in N. Dakota started a petition for New York State to secede. The petition has around 4000 signatures as of now, and needs 25,000 in order to require a response from the Fed Govt. Since NY is primarily a "blue state", even if they get the 25,000 Signatures, how is that interpreted to mean the state really wants to secede?

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

Oh! and one more thing...what happens to any "nukes" deployed in those state/countries?...hmmmm...

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

=Zoomer= said:
Oh! and one more thing...what happens to any "nukes" deployed in those state/countries?...hmmmm...

The nukes, as well as the road maint., disaster help, medicare/caid/, national guard, welfare...etc...will be removed.

myp · Nov 13, 2012

I am not supporting the secession movement, but in their defense (and in response to Zoomer's post), it can be argued that secession is very Constitutional and even moreso that that the founding fathers strongly supported it.

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

More power to anyone who wishes to leave the union...

But, be careful what you wish for

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

myp said:
I am not supporting the secession movement, but in their defense (and in response to Zoomer's post), it can be argued that secession is very Constitutional and even moreso that that the founding fathers strongly supported it.

I suppose it could be argued Myp, but I wasn't giving my opinion, the SC has already ruled on it (unilateral secession)...

Secession in the United States can refer to secession of a state from the United States, secession of part of a state from that state to form a new state, or secession of an area from a city or county.
Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right of revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The above is Wiki - and I know better than to put 100% faith in it, but I would bet if we track down the actual arguments, we would find it to be true~

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

tecoyah said:
The nukes, as well as the road maint., disaster help, medicare/caid/, national guard, welfare...etc...will be removed.

I think you're right. And I sure wish there WAS a way we could let those that want to leave/create a new country for themselves do so (as long as I'm NOT THE ONE THAT HAS TO MOVE!!! lol).

I wonder how long it would take those people to realize their mistake?

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states , Virginia and New York, made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

They can certainly leave the union...but it is unlikely to go well. Imagine the issues with interstate commerce alone.

myp · Nov 13, 2012

Zoomer, I am aware of the SC ruling. Proponents of secession consider the ruling itself to not be true to the "real" Constitution (like those people who find certain amendments that should not have been allowed into it). Of course the "real" Constitution is a very arguable entity.

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

myp said:
Zoomer, I am aware of the SC ruling. Proponents of secession consider the ruling itself to not be true to the "real" Constitution (like those people who find certain amendments that should not have been allowed into it). Of course the "real" Constitution is a very arguable entity.

Why doesn't it surprise me there's such a thing as a "fake" constitution....<sigh>

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

tecoyah said:
A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states , Virginia and New York, made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

They can certainly leave the union...but it is unlikely to go well. Imagine the issues with interstate commerce alone.

You say they made the right to withdraw explicit in their acceptance. Do you know where we could find it? I doubt it would have been a verbal agreement. What documents exist to corroborate it?

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

=Zoomer= said:
You say they made the right to withdraw explicit in their acceptance. Do you know where we could find it? I doubt it would have been a verbal agreement. What documents exist to corroborate it?

Rather than post the information...here is the link:

http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html

=Zoomer= · Nov 13, 2012

tecoyah said:
Rather than post the information...here is the link:

http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html

Ok, tks. Looking at the document, it seems to be one of those "used car salesman" things. "Sure, you can bring it back if you don't like it". Looking at the 3rd para:

Some important facts should be pointed out.

First, the ratifications of the Constitution by New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island were not given conditionally upon those states being granted the right to secede by the other states. Had that been the case, the ratifications would have been invalid. Ratifications of the Constitution had to be unconditional. Those who voted to ratify the Constitution in New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island simply put into writing a right they thought naturally belonged to their respective states. The states were voluntarily joining the Union, and most people believed the same principles toward self-governance that gave states the right to join the Union also gave states the right to withdraw from the Union. [It’s sometimes said that the way people think regarding that last point may be determined by whether they view a state’s joining the Union as making a contract or as joining a treaty. The right to unilaterally withdraw from treaties is generally accepted. The right to unilaterally withdraw from contracts is not generally accepted.]

I still don't think their written explicit statements affect the Constitutionality. However, they certainly are a basis of argument! Thanks for the ref.

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

=Zoomer= said:
Ok, tks. Looking at the document, it seems to be one of those "used car salesman" things. "Sure, you can bring it back if you don't like it". Looking at the 3rd para:

I still don't think their written explicit statements affect the Constitutionality. However, they certainly are a basis of argument! Thanks for the ref.

You are certainly welcome...but explicit or not, written into the document or not, they do exist and can be used for justification...misguided as it may be.

David · Nov 13, 2012

I'm pro-secession so long as it's done right. A clean break wouldn't work but pre-negotiated trade agreements and MDPs with a major power or 2 and recognition of continued Federal control of military assets (NG assets being the exception) could work so long as the state is viable as an independent nation (California, Texas, Florida, etc.).

tecoyah · Nov 13, 2012

Why would we. as the nation, agree to these stipulations for the wayward state?

Hell, I would vote against it out of spite.

David · Nov 13, 2012

tecoyah said:
Why would we. as the nation, agree to these stipulations for the wayward state?

Hell, I would vote against it out of spite.

I never said the negotiations would be public or with the US. lol

myp · Nov 13, 2012

tecoyah said:
Why would we. as the nation, agree to these stipulations for the wayward state?

Hell, I would vote against it out of spite.

The history of the US is an interesting one when it comes to this. Originally, we as a nation were very pro-self determination. I think a lot of people individually still believe in it (although more when it applies to other people and not us

). The Civil War really changed the viewpoint as a country though and through the government where it went from being pro to against because Lincoln was against and his ideas basically prevailed.

Calls for Secession

Similar threads