Would you allow secession?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by modernpaladin, Dec 3, 2018.

?

Would you allow polarized America to split into two nations?

  1. I lean left, I would allow it.

    7 vote(s)
    17.5%
  2. I lean right, I would allow it.

    16 vote(s)
    40.0%
  3. I lean left, I would not allow it.

    7 vote(s)
    17.5%
  4. I lean right, I would not allow it.

    10 vote(s)
    25.0%
  1. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm not sure what you are asking but I'll say this. The point is states have the right to do those things, whether they actually do them or not making them semi autonomous nations. It doesn't matter if they currently have no standing army (They actually do. It's called the national guard but that's beside the point) or if they currently couldn't stand on their own. If a state wished too it could decide to balance it's budget. That's what I mean by the lines being blurred, it looks like they have no autonomy from the outside because of multiple things including a relatively long history of national identity, etc, but if it chose, a state could enforce it's granted autonomy. The laws granting the states powers of autonomy are still there in the constitution though I do see us possibly moving towards an official unitary nation (with provinces) if things continue the way they are; maybe in the next 100 years if the US lasts that long. Point is currently states are still semi autonomous (how much being clearly granted by the constitution). They are not, though, entirely sovereign like a few libertarians here would like us to believe.

    The federal court seems to have decided that states can't secede (White vs Texas), but if I'm not mistaken I think the constitution is the only thing that has a say in these matters, so I'm pretty sure states can secede and with the current climate I'm pretty sure no one would stop succession. No one wants a civil war in a superpower. It would be unimaginably worse than even WW2.

    But my personal opinion is no. I wouldn't want my state to secede and stand on it's own even with possible alliances.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018
  2. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, the NG is part of the militia. States are constitutionally prohibited from maintaining standing armies.
    Actually the constitution says they can't - see A1S10.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018
  3. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The NG is controlled by the state governor until called upon by the feds, whereupon they are the federal militia, but only then. Before then they are state militia and can interfere with state police activity under control of the governor. Also, some states have defense forces that can not be federalized and are under only state control. Is that not a standing army? citation of this prohibition?
    Clarification and elaboration please? That is just a list of things states cannot do while in the union. Seceding does not declare war except by external proxy so that doesn't count either.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, that's a state militia - which is no more a standing army than is the federal militia.
    From A1S10:

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, [] keep Troops[.]​

    I was thinking the prohibition was unconditional, so my mistake there; but I don't know of any state that has been permitted a standing army.
    It's a list of things they can't to at all, other than with congressional approval.
    What it declares is possession by the state of powers the Constitution says it can't exercise, wherefore such a declaration can have no legal effect, and acting on it is insurrection.

    And of course that doesn't even consider property previouisly ceded to the US under the enclave clause.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2018
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    States can not secede. There is no mechanism for them to do so.

    This was settled in Texas v White.
     
  6. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Semantics. The militia is still active part time. It is still a standing army.
    Very ambiguous. Interesting. As far as a I know there hasn't been a court ruling on the translation.
    You may have a point about ceded territory and kept troops, but declaring oneself no longer a part of the union makes the constitution null and void as it only applies under the union. "Acting on it is insurrection" How so? The word doesn't apply.
    Why does there need to be a mechanism. What do you mean? For a court case to be law, it must be referencing a specific part of the constitution otherwise it is only specific to the time and place. What was Texas vs White referencing in the constitution? The courts cannot just make up law. They only interpret the constitution.
     
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    State law is subordinate to federal law. Federal law does not permit a state to leave the union. They have no way of doing so.
    Read the ruling. No state can leave the union, unless congress agrees to it.
     
  8. BaghdadBob

    BaghdadBob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2016
    Messages:
    3,126
    Likes Received:
    4,804
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are implying that the language of the Constitution doesn't prevent a state unilaterally from leaving the union then you must read about the intent of the words used in the Constitution juxtaposed those of the Confederation of States to see that the intent is an indissolvable union. The intent is explained in Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution. It's the most oft quoted book in arguments before the SCOTUS.

    Read Book 3 Chatper 3
    https://lonang.com/library/reference/story-commentaries-us-constitution/
     
    rahl likes this.
  9. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,980
    Likes Received:
    1,376
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I would never allow it.
    I did not vote in the poll as all the choices offered either left or right leaning. I would not label myself either.
     
  10. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution plainly says otherwise in A1S8, wherein the two are clearly distinguished from each other.
    No, a standing army is composed of professional soldiers, as which neither organized nor unorganized militia members qualify.
    So it might appear to those who imagine there is no substantive difference between a militia and a standing army.
    What are you talking about?
    I really have to wonder whether people who think like this have ever become a party to a contract, and then tried to declare it null and void when they found its terms inconvenient.
    Because it's an act in open defiance of US jurisdiction.
     
  11. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is a difference, really not much besides words on a piece of paper though. In reality they are both professional armies, the only difference being one is active full time and one is only active part time. Even so, some national guard soldiers are full time.
    Interpretation
    If it were a contract it would have clear terms regarding the ending of said contract. As for the rest, really I'm just asking questions. I really don't know if states are officially allowed/disallowed to leave or not. Kind of a devils advocate thing to get to the bottom of it.
    And what defines that jurisdiction? Does the constitution clearly state this? I thought it was the states.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  12. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone who reads the relevant A1S8 provisions can see this is balderdash.
    Get real. One is composed of people who do it for a living, and who are therefore the best at it, and under the command of officers commissioned by the CiC; and the other of relative amateurs under the command of officers appointed by the state.
    Sure it would, if it were meant to end at all - which the agreement codified in the Articles of Confederation clearly was not. Why would you suppose the Constitution is any different in that respect?
    The supremacy clause, if I understand the question correctly.
    By June of 1790, the original 13 states had done so unanimously. As of ratification, 4 of them had the option to decline statehood, since A7 of the Constitution wasn't legal under the AoC; but that option disappeared forever when they ratified, since only the original 13 were ever under the AoC.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  13. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Clearly anyone appointed by the state is an unprofessional amateur.
    Because it's a different document.
    Good information.
     
  14. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I think one justifiable reason for state(s) to leave the union is if the electoral college was dissolved and the presidency was chosen by popular vote.

    This would reduced the power of states with smaller populations. And that's not what they signed up for when they joined the union in the first place.
     
  15. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,489
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I believe that IF......
    Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, much of British Comombia and the Yukon Territories did create a full fledged Republic.......
    many USA States might be tempted to join them???????????




    Proposed Republic of Western Canada and Unified Field Theory of M.W.P.


    [​IMG]
     
  16. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't matter whether they are or not, since all they have under their command is amateurs, relative to federal troops. Moreover, state appointed officers have a loyalty to the state that federal officers do not, a difference that's quite a bit more than mere words on paper.
    So just how do you imagine such a radical departure from the AoC as the right to unilateral secession went utterly unremarked upon in its successor?
     

Share This Page