The Constitutional Case for Constitutionally Valid Secession

[red butler]

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.

Or it could be the next round of bank bailouts. Or when the feds raid private retirement accounts. But you're right, there will be a tipping point.

 

[Burhead]

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.

I am neither right-wing nor a Republican but nice attempt to put me in a box. Second, using your logic we would not be here today as a nation had we not seceded. Nor would the Baltic states, the Caucasus republics, or the 'Stans be independent of Soviet domination had they not had the courage to declare independence. There are both risks and rewards to the group declaring independence.

 

[Velo Vol]

Yugoslavia, here we come!

 

[Burhead]

Yugoslavia, here we come!

You also saw the results of what happens when a central government tries to prevent secession of individual republics.

 

[volprof]

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?

If they can beat big, bad brother, then they win.

Look, I don't think this is anything we're going to solve on VolNation. It's a very complex question.

I just think that, typically, strong nations keep one another in check. Small, divided ones stand the risk of getting ran over. Of course this doesn't always prove the case in reality.

 

[volprof]

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

Okay.

 

[FLVOL69]

You are equating secession to anarchy. You are wrong.

Won't be the last time..

 

[Grand Vol]

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

lulz

Commentary: Democrats spoke of secession in 2004 after Bush was re-elected - Texas on the Potomac

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.

And these things obviously couldn't have been made possible by a State...

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.

Yeah, those darn people just need to shut up!

 

[lawgator1]

What is it with present-day conservatives always trying to liken themselves to the founding fathers? And despite the fact they endorse a specific theocracy and reduced representation of the poor and least powerful in our society.

Remarkable.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What is it with present-day conservatives always trying to liken themselves to the founding fathers? And despite the fact they endorse a specific theocracy and reduced representation of the poor and least powerful in our society.

Remarkable.

Your ability to misrepresent people is what's remarkable.

 

[MG1968]

What is it with present-day conservatives always trying to liken themselves to the founding fathers? And despite the fact they endorse a specific theocracy and reduced representation of the poor and least powerful in our society.

Remarkable.

I guess it's better to liken yourself to George Washington and James Madison than it is to walk in the same footsteps as Che Guevara and Karl Marx.

 

[Grand Vol]

What is it with present-day conservatives always trying to liken themselves to the founding fathers? And despite the fact they endorse a specific theocracy and reduced representation of the poor and least powerful in our society.

Remarkable.

So...no comments to the far left loons calling for secession when Bush was reelected?

 

[therealUT]

The Civil War is over.

We, on here, are well aware that you neither care for the Constitution nor to even discuss the Constitution. Move along.

 

[therealUT]

Here's the thing though TRUT, you assume the Union is a valid and binding contract of sorts. It is, but it is not. So when you say a State has the "right" to secede, you say "in accordance with the Constitutional provisions, the following States have the right to secede." However, if one State feels like they are no longer bound to follow the federal government and wants to dissolve their association with the Federal government, they have every right to do so if it's in the best interests of the People. The ramifications of same are probably going to be a bit harsh (Federal interdiction) but the individual States have every right to remove themselves from the Union if they choose.

Jefferson made comments to the nature that the laws of necessity of saving the State was of higher importance. Which could imply if a State feels it necessary to remove itself from the Union as a form of self preservation, it has the obligation (right) to do so.

I'm more aligned to think that a state can secede whenever it so desires, however, even if that is not the case, a state can still secede, in accordance with the Constitution, in the manner explained.

 

[therealUT]

Reversing the idea a bit, since each new Amendment is an addition to the Constitution, doesn't that mean anytime a state DOES vote for a new Amendment they are agreeing to the Constitution as a whole, including previous Amendments they didn't agree to?

Put another way. If the states accepts the new change (Amendment) to the 'old' Constitution, and that 'old' Constitution has Amendments that state doesn't like, then to accept the new Amendment they would have to accept the old Constitution and any Amendments.

put even more simply. By accepting the new you are accepting the old "new" as well, because once accepted its all one big document.

just my thoughts, not firm beliefs just an interesting thought sparked by the OP

I disagree, but then again, I don't see 'tacit consent' as a coherent concept. Many do think 'tacit consent' is a coherent concept, and they would be absolutely on board with your argument. However, the same principle is easily applied to subjects of governments and their 'acceptance' of certain statutes: e.g., if you were against legislation to prohibit the sales of firearms, why did you continue to pay state taxes, obey state speed limits, etc.? Explicit consent is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary.

 

[Sandvol]

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.

It will be some statist in charge like Obama. But the landscape is very different than it was then. A very large percentage of the military and its officers would go with the succeeding states. During the Civil War the North was 5 times the size of the South and had all the manufacturing, shipping, energy resources, transportation, etc. None of that is true anymore. It would probably be about 35-40 states versus the remaining. Most of the military and equipment would go with those states. Really, nothing will be done about it. By this point though there will be anarchy in the streets-think pitchforks and storming the Bastille. Washington will be worried a lot more about saving their hides than stopping states from succeeding. This is not going to be some civilized affair.

 

[The Ron Mexico]

There will be zero states secede from the Union. It's a moot point (a cow's opinion). They are all too afraid of cutting the Federal umbilical cord that has supplied them with pork money for decades.

 

[therealUT]

OP is saying that every time an amendment is proposed and voted upon, any given State (or States) could use that as an opportunity to bail. It is an idea popularized by religious right wingers and the wealthy who don't like the country's changing demographics, or the threat they perceive from that to the traditional hierarchy of our economic stratification.

Negative. The theme of secession from the Union is actually a theme that has been expressed by members on all sides of the political spectrum at various times and places. Grounding that notion solely in relation to Constitutional amendment ratification procedures as something the Constitution must actually permit is actually quite novel.

 

[Grand Vol]

I'm more aligned to think that a state can secede whenever it so desires, however, even if that is not the case, a state can still secede, in accordance with the Constitution, in the manner explained.

There is the "legal" way of doing it sure. But I'm more inclined to believe the State(s) that depart would do so with a big EFF YOU to Washington on their way out.

It would not be pretty either way. Because even if they used your Constitutional method, the Federal Government would still move to quash what would undoubtedly be termed as a "rebellion."

 

[govols/cc]

You are equating secession to anarchy. You are wrong.

We should just divide in two. Libs have their side then there's everybody else. See which one lasts the longest &/or how long it takes for most to jump ship. It's hard to support welfare with nobody to fund it. It's no fun when there's nobody to cry to about discrimination, racism, etc.

 

[therealUT]

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.

There are landlocked countries that engage in international trade. Why some do some successfully and some fail has a lot to do with what it is they have to offer, as well as what type of socio-economic baggage from the past they are bearing.

Kansas would be just fine as a sovereign state. Arkansas, however, would probably suffer. And, well, Missouri would just slide right back into the hellish abyss from whence it came.

 

[Sandvol]

I disagree, but then again, I don't see 'tacit consent' as a coherent concept. Many do think 'tacit consent' is a coherent concept, and they would be absolutely on board with your argument. However, the same principle is easily applied to subjects of governments and their 'acceptance' of certain statutes: e.g., if you were against legislation to prohibit the sales of firearms, why did you continue to pay state taxes, obey state speed limits, etc.? Explicit consent is, in my opinion, absolutely necessary.

Tacit consent seems like a coherent concept to me but I don't think it is a non-reversible course. The idea that a state can't decide at some future point to unjoin the Union is tyrannical in my opinion.

 

[therealUT]

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.

Yes, outside of the United States, stepping upon an airplane is akin to playing Russian roulette. Are you really this stupid or has this all been one decade long act?

 

[Sandvol]

We should just divide in two. Libs have their side then there's everybody else. See which one lasts the longest &/or how long it takes for most to jump ship. It's hard to support welfare with nobody to fund it. It's no fun when there's nobody to cry to about discrimination, racism, etc.

Sounds fair.

 

[therealUT]

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.

This is the most absurd argument for compliance there can be. So, the Jews in Auschwitz should have had no complaints against their Nazi captors, since, after all, their food, clothing, bedding, beds, and shelter were all provided by the German government?

Of course, you can object and say, "There stuff was ****ty" and "The German government was killing them", but it is no longer a principled objection along the lines you are walking. Regardless of how nice the material was for the Jews (let's imagine they were given top of the line everything), the argument against the German government from their perspective boils down to persecution and loss of human rights.

Now, if you want to still argue, go for it. I imagine you will still log a complaint about the conditions not being able to have been any better and about how the US government is not killing anyone (nor, of course, would it ever kill its own citizens). But, the sharaskas in the Soviet Union were well supplied, and the prisoners there were treated quite well, as far as treatment for prisoners goes. Very few were killed; very few were beaten. Their liberty was taken away, and they were 'compensated' with nice offices, books, recreation time, etc.

Oh, and, yes, the US government has incarcerated vast numbers of its population for absolute bull****, both in the past and in the present.