Where do you stand on State succession?

[GHook93]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

We could swap out Texas for Puerto Rico and never have to change the flag.

I think California and New York should just take over things and say unless you want to starve or go back to the dark ages, step in line and do as we say.

If Texas left where would Obama's job numbers come from?

 

[kaz]

Are you trying to hide your inability to spell or know the definition of words.
LOL

Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.

Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.

Won't happen.

In this country now you have to secede to succeed! And that's a non answer, the question is what do you support. As if I don't know the answer of a big government "conservative." But I do like the formality.

I'm giving people the rope so that the asses out there can self identify.

So seriously, you can't address points unless the spelling is correct?

 

[Dutch]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

We could swap out Texas for Puerto Rico and never have to change the flag.

I think California and New York should just take over things and say unless you want to starve or go back to the dark ages, step in line and do as we say.

If Texas seceded, then a lot of the South would probably go with them. Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

Texas's economy would collapse. The aerospace and defense industry accounts for billions of the Texas economy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh.

Kaz is having a spaz moment.

No one is going anywhere.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede.

The whole point of the Constitution was to keep states from being able to leave the Confederation. The response to Shays' rebellion made it clear our Founders did not believe in secession.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Quincy Adams

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” - Thomas Jefferson

Some of the founders had no problem with the idea of secession.

 

[kaz]

While I think the right to secede exists, I don't see any practical benefit. For starters, the federal government would invade and put it down with as much for as necessary, and secondly the independent state would simply become the same as the federal government, albeit on a smaller scale, in a short amount of time. So it'd be a lot of risk for no benefit as far as I can tell.

The premise of the question is not what you think other people would do, it's what you think States should be allowed to do. If you vote to secede, that means you personally think that States should have that right. I am not polling what you think other people think.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the issue was decided a several generations ago.

That's what the commies said about the Soviet Revolution.

Naw.

What they said was that they would like Putin to be President of the United States.

Putin is a commie, nimrod. He used to be head of the KGB.

 

[bripat9643]

The issue has long been decided.

A few wack far right wing nut reactionaries and the dipsy anarchists can moan and groan all they want.

It makes not a whit's difference.

It's only "decided" until we decide otherwise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue has long been decided.

A few wack far right wing nut reactionaries and the dipsy anarchists can moan and groan all they want.

It makes not a whit's difference.

It's only "decided" until we decide otherwise.

We the People decided a long, long time ago. I will send you a copy of the msg.

 

[kaz]

We could swap out Texas for Puerto Rico and never have to change the flag.

I think California and New York should just take over things and say unless you want to starve or go back to the dark ages, step in line and do as we say.

If Texas seceded, then a lot of the South would probably go with them. Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

Texas's economy would collapse. The aerospace and defense industry accounts for billions of the Texas economy.

Actually, there is no reason that a State or States that secede would not continue to trade and even have companies that span the new countries any more than American companies now are international.

Over time, those States would do far better than the NY/California socialist United States of America that remained. You'd be dependent on us.

 

[bripat9643]

I think the issue was decided a several generations ago.

So you opposed overturning the Dred Scott decision because it was overturning what had already been decided?

I might be past my prime but I'm just not that old.

The Dred Scott decision, possibly the worst decision and mistake made by the Supreme Court, was overturn by Constitutional Amendments. The validity of secession was decided by the war. I guess the racists out there could try and overturn the Amendments with another Amendment. And I suppose some states could try secession again too. Both would likely fail. Again IMO.

It worked in Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine.

 

[boilermaker55]

you are the stupid ass that posed the question and gave an incorrect explanation.
We cannot help it if you are not that intelligent.
The question in now way matches your statement after.

Are you trying to hide your inability to spell or know the definition of words.
LOL

In this country now you have to secede to succeed! And that's a non answer, the question is what do you support. As if I don't know the answer of a big government "conservative." But I do like the formality.

I'm giving people the rope so that the asses out there can self identify.

So seriously, you can't address points unless the spelling is correct?

 

[g5000]

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede.

The whole point of the Constitution was to keep states from being able to leave the Confederation. The response to Shays' rebellion made it clear our Founders did not believe in secession.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” - John Quincy Adams

The 6th President of the United States was not a Founder. But he also said at the beginning of that speech, "The right of a state to secede from the Union, is equally disowned by the principles of the Declaration of Independence." And in the part you quoted he is plainly saying states do not have the right to secede, but may choose to do so anyway if they cannot reconcile themselves with the rest of the country.

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” - Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was speaking about the acquisition of the Lousiana Purchase and how the existing Atlantic states wanted the new lands to be separate so as not to undermine their electoral powers.

 

[kaz]

The issue has long been decided.

A few wack far right wing nut reactionaries and the dipsy anarchists can moan and groan all they want.

It makes not a whit's difference.

It's only "decided" until we decide otherwise.

We the People decided a long, long time ago. I will send you a copy of the msg.

Do you notice you're arguing like a reactionary? That nothing can change even if we want it to? Our programming is taking hold Jake, you are one of us now.

 

[bripat9643]

For most of my life, I could not have contemplated the idea that I would support such a thing. But the curve of the country towards socialism and away from liberty is so steep that I would now not only embrace the idea, but move to a State that secession. What say you?

It's not a good thing to encourage.

It would bring chaos, death and destruction to our country.

Our enemies want exactly that.

Don't let them bring U.S. down by driving a wedge between U.S.

And it's, "seceded."

Bootlickers like you would be the ones bringing the death, chaos and destruction.

 

[bripat9643]

Without the ability to leave, you do not have a union in the first place. So, following the war of Northern Aggression, what started as a union is now a conscription to federal slavery of the states.

There is no union without the ability to secede peacefully. And we learned what the federal government thinks of peaceful secession already. They will not allow it. Tyrants gonna tyrant.

Before the Civil War, we were a voluntary union of sovereign states. After the war we were an empire of subjects.

 

[Dutch]

If Texas seceded, then a lot of the South would probably go with them. Ironically wanting to maintain slavery was one of the big reasons the South seceded the first time, and this time it would be to escape slavery...

Texas's economy would collapse. The aerospace and defense industry accounts for billions of the Texas economy.

Actually, there is no reason that a State or States that secede would not continue to trade and even have companies that span the new countries any more than American companies now are international.

Over time, those States would do far better than the NY/California socialist United States of America that remained. You'd be dependent on us.

Those companies would flock out of the state that left. They know where their bread is buttered.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone who thinks it's a good idea for their state to secede from the union does not have a clue how many benefits each state receives from the federal government. There are a few pros to secession but the cons far outweigh them.

No state receives benefits that it doesn't also pay for.

 

[bripat9643]

Spell it 'secession', and we can go from there.

Any state can leave the Union, provided the other states approve.

Won't happen.

Fuck their approval. Who says the federal government would allow it even if they did approve?

Nothing in the Constitution says a state can't secede. Even if it did, I would say the Constitution has no authority to tell states they can't secede.

The theory that state have no right to secede is just plain bunk.

That is interesting. Let's us say, and I think they do, states have a constitutional right to succession. What then? They are no longer protected by the federal government nor do the have rights under the constitution. So what would stop the rest of the states from just taking over the state as in conquest because they could argue having a hostile state in the midst of the other states is untenable.

In the first place, states can't conduct foreign policy on their own initiative. And yeah, the federal government could make war on any state that decided to secede. That's exactly what happened during the Civil War. It remains to be seen if the federal government would actually invade a state that seceded.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I think the right to secede exists, I don't see any practical benefit. For starters, the federal government would invade and put it down with as much for as necessary, and secondly the independent state would simply become the same as the federal government, albeit on a smaller scale, in a short amount of time. So it'd be a lot of risk for no benefit as far as I can tell.

The premise of the question is not what you think other people would do, it's what you think States should be allowed to do. If you vote to secede, that means you personally think that States should have that right. I am not polling what you think other people think.

Well, in that case, yes, the right to secede exists.