The Constitutional Case for Constitutionally Valid Secession

[Sandvol]

The Civil War is over.

The first one.

 

[volprof]

So tell me states (I'm using the term loosely, as in nation-states) can have the right to peaceful & democratic self-determination of there political futures, than why can't American states in the future? If, at some point in the future, a state's collective population wishes no longer be apart of this union and votes in a referendum on independence why should we expend the resources to keep them in a union they no longer wish to be in?

It's a nice thought, but somebody has to keep the **** together. You take this philosophy of self-determination to the extreme, all you're left with is mere anarchy. I want to be my own country. Why is a state better than me?

Nothing in life is perfect. Wars happen and things change. This nation will surely change one day. But you still can't have willy-nilly. Actually, there's a good Onion article about this, let me link it:

Everyone In Middle East Given Own Country In 317,000,000-State Solution | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


Somebody has to keep the **** together.

Edit: And if you think things are bad now, just pursue a "everyone is entitled to self-determination" policy. It's utopianistic, I admit, but, just like every utopia, it falls on its head.

 

[Sandvol]

It's a nice thought, but somebody has to keep the **** together. You take this philosophy of self-determination to the extreme, all you're left with is mere anarchy. I want to be my own country. Why is a state better than me?

Nothing in life is perfect. Wars happen and things change. This nation will surely change one day. But you still can't have willy-nilly. Actually, there's a good Onion article about this, let me link it:

Everyone In Middle East Given Own Country In 317,000,000-State Solution | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Somebody has to keep the **** together.

That's not really a logical argument. A person can physically leave the state or states if he is not happy. The nation was Constituted as a Republic. I know you're not for all these "states rights" but that is how our Founders saw themselves was as a collection of 13 states with a weak central government. It has evolved into something far removed from that vision. We don't follow the original framework and neither did Lincoln when he chose to attack the South.

 

[Sandvol]

It's a nice thought, but somebody has to keep the **** together. You take this philosophy of self-determination to the extreme, all you're left with is mere anarchy. I want to be my own country. Why is a state better than me?

Nothing in life is perfect. Wars happen and things change. This nation will surely change one day. But you still can't have willy-nilly. Actually, there's a good Onion article about this, let me link it:

Everyone In Middle East Given Own Country In 317,000,000-State Solution | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


Somebody has to keep the **** together.

Edit: And if you think things are bad now, just pursue a "everyone is entitled to self-determination" policy. It's utopianistic, I admit, but, just like every utopia, it falls on its head.

Conservatives don't believe in utopia. It's you statists that do. We just want the right to pursue happiness but not be granted happiness.

 

[Burhead]

Quebec tries this from time to time. The problem is that a separate Quebec also wants to benefit from the social welfare spending of the rest of Canada without contributing anything to the system.

I know that's Canada. But how would a state like Kansas, completely landlocked, engage in international trade? Not just with Oklahoma, but with Japan, Germany, and so on?

The point being is that a seceded state is still going to be dependent, in some way, on the United States. Possible exceptions would be states like California, Texas and Florida.

How do landlocked nations conduct international trade now?

It's a nice thought, but somebody has to keep the **** together. You take this philosophy of self-determination to the extreme, all you're left with is mere anarchy. I want to be my own country. Why is a state better than me?

Nothing in life is perfect. Wars happen and things change. This nation will surely change one day. But you still can't have willy-nilly. Actually, there's a good Onion article about this, let me link it:

Everyone In Middle East Given Own Country In 317,000,000-State Solution | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


Somebody has to keep the **** together.

Edit: And if you think things are bad now, just pursue a "everyone is entitled to self-determination" policy. It's utopianistic, I admit, but, just like every utopia, it falls on its head.

What happens when 1 state declares independence? Roll Federal troops in and occupy that state? Fine that's okay, what do you do now when 5 states declare independence? 10? 15? At some point occupying those states will eventually start draining men, resources, and money and in the long run will not be beneficial to the future Washington government.

 

[volprof]

That's not really a logical argument. A person can physically leave the state or states if he is not happy. The nation was Constituted as a Republic. I know you're not for all these "states rights" but that is how our Founders saw themselves was as a collection of 13 states with a weak central government. It has evolved into something far removed from that vision. We don't follow the original framework and neither did Lincoln when he chose to attack the South.

Conservatives don't believe in utopia. It's you statists that do. We just want the right to pursue happiness but not be granted happiness.

Pardon my French, but what in the **** are you talking about? Where did I mention "conservatives" or "liberals." And your comment about the Civil War is pretty telling. Sorry, you lost, buddy.

So, yeah, let's just everybody form our own country. Let's just do our own thing. Utopia on Earth, here we come!

I'm talking about humans, not perfect ethical machines.

 

[volprof]

How do landlocked nations conduct international trade now?



What happens when 1 state declares independence? Roll Federal troops in and occupy that state? Fine that's okay, what do you do now when 5 states declare independence? 10? 15? At some point occupying those states will eventually start draining men, resources, and money and in the long run will not be beneficial to the future Washington government.

The object is not to alienate those states in the first place, provided you're all part of a normal society.

 

[Sandvol]

How do landlocked nations conduct international trade now?



What happens when 1 state declares independence? Roll Federal troops in and occupy that state? Fine that's okay, what do you do now when 5 states declare independence? 10? 15? At some point occupying those states will eventually start draining men, resources, and money and in the long run will not be beneficial to the future Washington government.

Today, if large number of states tried to succeed there's really nothing Washington could do about it. I mean who would you have left-California, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey and Minnesota? They're impotent as it is.

 

[MG1968]

How do landlocked nations conduct international trade now?

They have trade agreements with their trading partners and with their neighbors. In the case of Kansas, however, what happens if a product, like Cuban cigars, is legal there while being illegal in the US?

 

[Sandvol]

Pardon my French, but what in the **** are you talking about? Where did I mention "conservatives" or "liberals." And your comment about the Civil War is pretty telling. Sorry, you lost, buddy.

So, yeah, let's just everybody form our own country. Let's just do our own thing. Utopia on Earth, here we come!

I'm talking about humans, not perfect ethical machines.

You statists don't believe in humans do you? That's why we need masterminds to make our decisions for us.

 

[Burhead]

The object is not to alienate those states in the first place, provided you're all part of a normal society.

Of course that's the objective but what if some event in the future does alienate the majority of some state to the point they do want out. How can you justify occupation when our nation was founded upon such a decision?

 

[red butler]

That's not really a logical argument. A person can physically leave the state or states if he is not happy. The nation was Constituted as a Republic. I know you're not for all these "states rights" but that is how our Founders saw themselves was as a collection of 13 states with a weak central government. It has evolved into something far removed from that vision. We don't follow the original framework and neither did Lincoln when he chose to attack the South.

It would certainly be a heck of a lot easier for citizens to hold politicians accountable if more power rested with the states instead of the central government.

 

[n_huffhines]

No one will ever be allowed to secede because bigger is always better. Bigger government, bigger debt, bigger war machine, etc.

 

[Sandvol]

It would certainly be a heck of a lot easier for citizens to hold politicians accountable if more power rested with the states instead of the central government.

That's what our Founders thought too. The age of "enlightenment" changed all that.

 

[red butler]

Today, if large number of states tried to succeed there's really nothing Washington could do about it. I mean who would you have left-California, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey and Minnesota? They're impotent as it is.

And they're bankrupt.

 

[Sandvol]

No one will ever be allowed to secede because bigger is always better. Bigger government, bigger debt, bigger war machine, etc.

It won't be just one or two states. And, they won't be able to be stopped this time.

 

[Vols520]

The Civil War is over.

This made me laugh very hard.

 

[Sandvol]

I think the tipping point will be when this thing starts becoming unglued the Federal Government will try to obligate the other states to fund the worker pensions of these large states like California and New York.

 

[lawgator1]

Seems like the first thing the "scholars" who want to justify secession do when they've left the discussion panel is catch a flight home on an airline, made safe by federal regulation, authorities, and air traffic controllers.

 

[MG1968]

Seems like the first thing the "scholars" who want to justify secession do when they've left the discussion panel is catch a flight home on an airline, made safe by federal regulation, authorities, and air traffic controllers.

And seated next to them is some crackpot "scientist" flying home from a global warming summit.

 

[Burhead]

Seems like the first thing the "scholars" who want to justify secession do when they've left the discussion panel is catch a flight home on an airline, made safe by federal regulation, authorities, and air traffic controllers.

Who here is advocating secession? I'm not but I also believe all people reserve the right to self-determination should they ever wish to pursue said recourse.

 

[lawgator1]

Who here is advocating secession? I'm not but I also believe all people reserve the right to self-determination should they ever wish to pursue said recourse.

Lofty rhetoric, usually used to express how pi**ed off a right wing loon is that there is a Democrat in the White House.

Don't know you, but will venture to guess you have so far today done at least a half a dozen things made possible by the federal government.

People love to throw around this vague threat of secession as an exclamation point for their tirades about whatever they feel objectionable. You don't really mean it. Either shut up and deal with it or try embracing change.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lofty rhetoric, usually used to express how pi**ed off a right wing loon is that there is a Democrat in the White House.

Don't know you, but will venture to guess you have so far today done at least a half a dozen things made possible by the federal government.

People love to throw around this vague threat of secession as an exclamation point for their tirades about whatever they feel objectionable. You don't really mean it. Either shut up and deal with it or try embracing change.

You are equating secession to anarchy. You are wrong.

 

[n_huffhines]

It won't be just one or two states. And, they won't be able to be stopped this time.

It was 11 states last time, and the country was half the size it is today.

I like the idea of mass secession, but I don't know why you think the federal government wouldn't do everything in its power to stop it from happening. They would smash revolutionaries.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It was 11 states last time, and the country was half the size it is today.

I like the idea of mass secession, but I don't know why you think the federal government wouldn't do everything in its power to stop it from happening. They would smash revolutionaries.

They would. It would be unconstitutional, but that wouldn't stop them.