Moves to secede?

[jonathan_hili]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the right place for the post, but as a non-American I’m curious as to whether any states have recently given secession from the federation any serious consideration, with all the bullying that’s coming from Washington?

God bless.

 

[marty1818]

Nope.

 

[vsedriver]

secession didn’t work the first time, I doubt anyone wants to try it again.

 

[migueltojose]

hi all,

i’m not sure if this is the right place for the post, but as a non-american i’m curious as to whether any states have recently given secession from the federation any serious consideration, with all the bullying that’s coming from washington?

God bless.

texas - it is always on our minds.

The only state that can legally fly it’s state flag at the same height as the american flag. There’s a reason for that. Throw in oklahoma, new mexico and maybe arizona… Then colorado and maybe even mexico.

 

[Sacredheart1208]

Maybe utah too? I think our state signed a petition.

 

[Beryllos]

Not a chance. As I recall, talk of secession flared up a bit when Obama was elected, as if to say “He’s not my president!”, and I think that is just unpatriotic, childish pouting. Has anyone performed a detailed economic and political analysis of secession for specific states? What do they stand to gain? What would they lose?

And what do you mean by “all the bullying that’s coming from Washington”?

 

[John_Lazarus]

texas - it is always on our minds.

The only state that can legally fly it’s state flag at the same height as the american flag. There’s a reason for that. Throw in oklahoma, new mexico and maybe arizona… Then colorado and maybe even mexico.

Mexico might secede?

 

[GrowingFaith]

Unfortunately, no. There are many groups and individuals that support the idea, though, and I believe (and hope!) they’ll start gaining ground more and more. And throughout history, there have been quite a few movements, not just the Civil War.

 

[pnewton]

secession didn’t work the first time, I doubt anyone wants to try it again.

The federal government especially under this administration continues rule by fiat, as opposed to democratic principles. The government no longer derives its authority from the people but is a functional oligarchy. Unelected officials continue to override the will of the American people and will continue to do so. The federal government is strong enough to prevent secession. The lesson of the Civil War, among many, is not that the country must remain with the same states… always, but that right will always make right. The issue of secession was decided not with debate and argument, but at gunpoint.

 

[Cojuanco]

Hi all,

I’m not sure if this is the right place for the post, but as a non-American I’m curious as to whether any states have recently given secession from the federation any serious consideration, with all the bullying that’s coming from Washington?

God bless.

No, it’s illegal, and the military would likely put it down within days if not hours. And given the monstrosities like the Louisiana literacy test, I’m glad we have a strong federal government.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Some counties in Colorado want to secede from the rulership of Denver…

But no, the Civil War ended secession. We can’t go that way again.

 

[Cojuanco]

Some counties in Colorado want to secede from the rulership of Denver…

But no, the Civil War ended secession. We can’t go that way again.

See, Southerners are nowhere near that insane to repeat the same behavior and expect a different result.

A new state? Sure. A new country? No.

 

[Corki]

texas - it is always on our minds.

And on stickers on the backs of our cars (or trucks).

Besides Texas, there are several states with active secession movements. One of the most interesting is Vermont.

 

[mikeeh]

The only state that can legally fly it’s state flag at the same height as the American flag.

All state flags can fly at the same height as the U.S. flag. No state flag can fly higher than the U.S. flag.

 

[epan]

California actually seceded a while ago. But nobody noticed.

 

[The_Wizard]

No, it’s illegal, and the military would likely put it down within days if not hours. And given the monstrosities like the Louisiana literacy test, I’m glad we have a strong federal government.

Cojuanco,

The question of whether or not secession is legal has never been tested in a court of law. The constitution does not address the matter of states wanting out of the union. The South was FORCED back into the union. We don’t really know what would have happen if South Carolina did not fire on Fort Sumter.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Not a chance. As I recall, talk of secession flared up a bit when Obama was elected, as if to say "He’s not my president!", and I think that is just unpatriotic, childish pouting. Has anyone performed a detailed economic and political analysis of secession for specific states? What do they stand to gain? What would they lose?

And what do you mean by “all the bullying that’s coming from Washington”?

I suppose I mean, for example, recent decisions by Supreme Court judges imposing laws on the states, and ruling out Proposition 8.

 

[epan]

I suppose I mean, for example, recent decisions by Supreme Court judges imposing laws on the states, and ruling out Proposition 8.

The Court did not impose any laws on anyone. Elected representatives do that. In the case of Prop 8, the Court ruled that the people who were defending the case had no standing to do so. It was a decision on the Constitutionality of the trial process. Think about the ramifications, if anyone who felt like it could go to court, or jump into a lawsuit when they felt like it. You must have standing to be in court.

The governor and the attorney general of California decided not to defend the proposition. If you want to find blame somewhere, that is the place to do so. On the other hand, a good argument could be made (and was made) that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. So, it is quite possible that the governor was simply making a prudent decision not to waste money in the state coffers to defend an obvious losing case.

With DOMA, the President followed the Attorney General’s recommendation that the section of DOMA which was struck could not be defended, on constitutional grounds. The House of Representatives decided to defend the matter, regardless of that correct assessment. As it turned out, that part of DOMA was struck on equal protection and on due process grounds.

The logic was simple, and the ruling was clear. The only surprising thing about it was that only 5 justices formed the majority. But then, this may be the worst court in the history of our country.

If you agree that states have the right to define marriage. Then you can’t have two legally married couples in a state having differing rights under the law. It is really that simple. You either allow gay marriage, or you don’t. At no time has the claim been made that the marriage in question was not legally valid.

 

[pnewton]

The Court did not impose any laws on anyone. Elected representatives do that. I… But then, this may be the worst court in the history of our country.

I would have to agree that the last appointee is the most partisan of all time. The objection to the federal government is that it is broken with time. The balances in the Constitution have been nullified, specifically the balance between the state and the federal government. The Supreme Court has over the last two and a half centuries has made up law as they went on, starting with the very concept that they could actually nullify democracy, as they do from time to time. States rights is in the Constitution. Judicial review is not. They made it up. Now, they have absolute not check above them with any substance. They can run the country, are an unelected, partisan elite, who, like kings, serve for life. That is why I say we live in an oligarchy.

If you agree that states have the right to define marriage. Then you can’t have two legally married couples in a state having differing rights under the law.

hey can have the same rights within that state and from that state. Go to a state with a more moral code, those rights should not carry over.

 

[epan]

…
hey can have the same rights within that state and from that state. Go to a state with a more moral code, those rights should not carry over.

Then you have no problem with the DOMA ruling. All that happened is that equal rights were affirmed in a state that recognizes gay marriage.

However, this is a legal question to be resolved now: what happens is someone marries in a state which allows gay marriage, and then they move to a state which does not recognize the marriage? Would the couple still be entitled to federal benefits?

This is the same problem that was encountered with mixed race marriages.

My guess is that the Prop 8 ruling will serve as the first federal ruling to overturn similar laws in other states, because it was found unconstitutional. But also, the issue I mentioned above may well be cause to also overturn the rest of DOMA, which allows states not to recognize marriages legal in other states, but only in the case that it is a gay marriage. On the face of it, this also violates equal protection and due process.

The writing is on the wall.