Do you support legalizing secession?

I'm not asking if you think the US should break up or if your support secession. The question is, do you support a State having the right to break away from the US if it so chooses?

If you do not support this, please explain why you have a right to hold other States hostage. Why do you have a moral right to force your will on them by forcing them to follow US law? If this is a free country, then why doesn't that mean free to leave?

Why are you willing to have a civil war and likely kill millions, instead of letting people be free?

 

The US and the UK are unions. Off the top of my head, we gave Scotland, Falkland Islands and Gibraltar a referendum and they chose to stay part of the UK. Unfortunately not all are democratic and Sturgeon in Scotland has had a melt down since.

If enough citizens badger their own State enough, they too should have the right to a referendum. I suppose a legal binding referendum is direct democracy. The word democracy puzzles many Americans, they can't get Republic out of their heads. I omitted Brexit because it wasn't a legally binding vote, so the government didn't have to withdraw the UK from the EU, but they did.

 

as long as they take their portion of the US debt

 

There was a bit of a Civil War which settled that question.

You've got it backwards. Just because a majority in state might be part of the American Taliban, that doesn't give the Taliban the right to remove the liberties of the moral minority.

That is, as is so often the case, "liberty" is the answer liberals give to justify their position.

 

Agreed about the Civil War. One can write of the South's right to secede but they lost so this issue has been settled in blood.

Happily, the current USSC is working on rights that may harden blue state/red states' culture. People will have the freedom to help create the local culture they want and can support through their vote.

 

@HereWeGoAgain Well, to begin with, an all out civil war over secession is out of the question for a variety of reasons, the greatest being that a state’s population would have to be ready and willing to lose everything they have, including their lives, in a war. And, quite frankly, Americans would not be willing to do that.

So if we were to allow a state to secede from the Union, it would have to be peaceably, through a lawful process.

But there would be other problems. For example, let’s take Oregon. You have lived in Oregon. You know the political complexion of this state. To the casual observer, Oregon is thought to be a dark blue state. But a closer look reveals that two population centers, the Portland metropolitan area and the Eugene area, are what give Oregon its dark blue political status. Those two areas amount to three counties - Multnomah, Washington, and Lane. The rest of the state ranges from somewhat evenly divided to bright red. Those areas cover probably about 90% of the state’s geographical area.

So if there was a lawful and peaceable way to secede, and the blue majority voted to do that, the first thing that would happen would be that the rest of the state other than those 3 counties would simply rebel and simply not cooperate. Those 3 counties would have no way to force the rest of the state to renounce their U.S. citizenship in favor of citizenship in their new country. So what they would end up with is a new “country” comprised of about 3 cities - not unlike controlling a few small islands.

The same thing would happen in California and Washington. Another example would be New York State. Without New York City, New York State is a red state. And New York City would be unable to impose its will on the rest of the state.

And, of course, those little city-states would be cut off from all federal spending, including welfare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. If they wanted to replace those services, they would have to pay for them on their own.

So I suppose we could pass federal laws or a constitutional amendment making state secession perfectly legal, but they would never be implemented. And even if they were implemented, we’d end up with the United States of America and the United Cities of America, and let’s face it - that is just not going to happen.

So no, I do not support the idea. What I support is focusing on the things that unify us rather than those that divide us.

 

Any individual or group can leave. They cannot take their state with them.

 

As decided by the SCOTUS in Texas v White, there is no right to secede.
Texas v. White - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Texas_v._White

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. ... The case involved a claim by the ...
‎Background · ‎Secession and bond sales · ‎State of Texas, Plaintiff · ‎Decision

William T. Sherman

 

In a theoretical sense, I there probably should be a legal path to separation, Texas v White not withstanding. A court decision is only law until it's overridden by another court decision. The problem with secession in modern times is that it's almost impossible to divvy up things in a way that would work, Since the OP is an advocate of California secession, let's use that for an example: If California secedes, millions of seniors would find themselves without Medicare providers. They would essentially lose their old age health care, although they would be able to collect their Social Security. But millions of workers would lose whatever taxes they contributed to Medicare and SS. And how to split the national debt? 30 Trillion split 50 ways, or some other formula?

 

States already have that right.

 

That wasn't a civil war; it was a war of secession. That war did not "settle that question". Any state that wishes to break away from the Union has every right to do so. California (now a dictatorship) and New York (now an oligarchy) have already effectively done so.

 

There was no civil war. It was a war of secession.

States had the right to secede then, and they still have that right now..

This I agree with. Hopefully enough pro-abortion liberals in Wisconsin are PO'd that Wisconsin considers abortion to be a felony offense that they move out of the state and to a state like Illinois that closer-aligns with their beliefs. The more liberals that move out of Wisconsin the better.

 

That court decision is in error.

 

"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

 

Suppose it was Alaska and the Russians (or Chinese) started getting really chummy with the pro succession under 30 crowd. Would be accept Alaska being turned into a hostile province.

 

Charles Hughes is wrong. The Constitution says what it says. IOW, it speaks for itself.

 

Here's the full quote.

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Known as a master of building consensus, the two-time Supreme Court justice Charles Evans Hughes was lauded for his brilliant legal mind.

Charles Evans Hughes - Columbia 250

 

Prior to the Capitol riot, I would have agreed with @Seth Bullock. I believed that we, with our differences, could still live in a *united* states as a nation. I no longer believe that and don't see any pathway for that to happen again, if ever. It will take years, if not decades, for us to heal from what has transpired since 2016. I would absolutely support legalizing it now.

 

It obviously doesn't or we wouldn't need a SCOTUS or Constitution attorneys. /smdh

 

For the reasons I touched on, it’s completely impractical and impossible, even if it was legal.

I think Americans are sick of the polarization, as evidenced by the growing numbers of Unaffiliated/Independent voters. I think the majority want to come together where we can and be respectful of each other when we don’t agree.

The only REAL impediment to that is the “permanent Washington” Establishment, that being the politicians, the lobbyists and donors, and the major media. But sooner or later Americans are going to tell Permanent Washington to go f-ck itself; we’re not playing your games anymore. We’re Americans! F-ck off!

I would love to see the simultaneous defeat of the Republican and Democrat Parties in favor of a centrist third party, led by a sincere and charismatic leader. I think we’re actually heading that way, and it’s just a matter of time.

But breaking up the Union? Nah. We need to f-cking grow up and learn how to win and how to lose like good citizens, not like 4 year olds.

End of rant, for now.

 

All that I can really say is that the residents of the Canadian province of Alberta, in my opinion, have the right to leave Canada and join the United States if they so wish to do so..... (which I suspect will be much more likely if the G.O.P. wipes out the Democrats in the November elections)......
Biden and his handlers would certainly NOT want Albertans to join with the U.S.A. but I think that he will be a lame duck "President" in a few months.....

Is Alberta probably going to separate from Canada?


?
Is Alberta probably going to separate from Canada?

1. 
   No
   5 vote(s)
   71.4%
2. 
   Yes
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
3. 
   Perhaps... they do sure seem to have grounds for political DIVORCE!
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
4. *
   I sure do HOPE NOT!
   1 vote(s)
   14.3%
5. 
   I hope so!
   1 vote(s)
   14.3%

Change Your Vote

 

To the question -
Yes!
Especially the Republic of California


To the quote
Hurrah
Justice Robert Cooper Grier !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cooper_Grier


Moi

&
refuge to runaways​

 

No sht Sherlock. That is why I asked who would support that right.

It is nothing but tyranny and it only leaves civil war as an alternative.

Is this a free country or not? Free means free to leave. Why do you support tyranny?

Texas has been wanting to secede for a long time. And the West Coast would surely secede along with many States in the NE. And that's the ballgame. The rest of you are nothing without us. You should remember that. In the end we have all the power.

 

No State should tolerate the lack of representation in the Senate. That little tiny states like Wyoming [population 580,000] or Alaska, Kansas, Arkansas, North and South Dakota, etc etc, have as much representation as places like California [39.5 million] and Illinois, is a joke.

This is why the nation has failed. Five farmers and their dogs have as much political weight in the Senate as entire cities. And now we are seeing rule by a fanatical minority because of that. The system is highly biased towards red states where no one lives and the nation has failed as a consequence.

 

In 1800 [the census below from wiki], we didn't have the radical divergence in the populations of the different States. They were all in the same range of populations. But now we see States that have 50 or 60 times the population as other States. But everyone still gets 2 Senators. So no matter how many people are represented, each State has the same weight in the Senate. Representation is vastly disproportionate.

The Senate might have made sense in 1787, but it doesn't now.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_census

And to Jack Hays, the Constitution can be amended to legalize secession.