Moves to secede?

[Fairwinds]

Then name the Amendment.

my practice has included constitutional law issues for close to 30 years, and for the life of me, I have no idea what you’re trying to say, presumably about Marbury and judicial review, but I don’t know, you’re all over the map. I can’t get inside your head and you’re not expressing yourself coherently. I gather you don’t like the judiciary and have a nutty view of the founding fathers, but talking about congress bitchslapping the court isn’t making sense. these aren’t terms that anyone actually uses in the real world.

 

[Cojuanco]

Once again, even leaving aside issues of law, would you want a nation of children without fathers and wives without husbands?

 

[Luna_de_Colores]

Mexico might secede?

How unpatriotic.

 

[jonathan_hili]

the matter was practically settled by the civil war, the former confederate states accepted that, even if some people are still fighting the war in their minds today.

Hi Fairwinds, excuse my ignorance, but wasn’t the matter practically settled - as you put it - because the southern states lost the war? That’s kind of like saying, the matter was practically settled by the First World War that Germany would stop trying to annex other states and take over land…oh… Wars don’t settle issues, they just end debate by forcing a particular solution.

 

[jonathan_hili]

(off topic) it would be nice if the government took the same position toward divorce.

Agreed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Look, you know what secession and civil war (because that’s what would happen as a result of secession, given Unionist populations in every state) bring? See the news on Syria, where both sides shoot at old men, women and children? That’s what happens. Neighbors shooting neighbors, brothers shooting brothers.

I agree, Cojunaco, if secession necessarily means civil war. But why should it? If one of your states said they wanted out, why couldn’t they just be allowed to freely create their own new nation? Why does it have to come to war?

 

[Fairwinds]

Hi Fairwinds, excuse my ignorance, but wasn’t the matter practically settled - as you put it - because the southern states lost the war? That’s kind of like saying, the matter was practically settled by the First World War that Germany would stop trying to annex other states and take over land…oh… Wars don’t settle issues, they just end debate by forcing a particular solution.

the south forced the issue of what it called states rights into a war and lost. is there a point you want to make? do you think secession is legal in the US? because its not. anyone not still fighting the civil war in their heads understands that the federal government never accepted the secession ordinances as valid during the war and in the Texas case, by process of law those ordinances were declared void.

the feds never considered secession legal and used the army to end the rebellion. it would do the same today, except the legal case against secession is resolved.

seriously, make a point. if you think secession is still possible, explain why.

 

[Fairwinds]

I agree, Cojunaco, if secession necessarily means civil war. But why should it? If one of your states said they wanted out, why couldn’t they just be allowed to freely create their own new nation? Why does it have to come to war?

(1) because they don’t have the constitutional right to do that and, (2) the federal government is not going to let a state leave the union and (3) there will be a huge minority of citizens who do not want to leave the United States.

 

[jonathan_hili]

the south forced the issue of what it called states rights into a war and lost. is there a point you want to make? do you think secession is legal in the US? because its not. anyone not still fighting the civil war in their heads understands that the federal government never accepted the secession ordinances as valid during the war and in the Texas case, by process of law those ordinances were declared void.

the feds never considered secession legal and used the army to end the rebellion. it would do the same today, except the legal case against secession is resolved.

seriously, make a point. if you think secession is still possible, explain why.

I guess the point is not that secession is legal, obviously it is not, but can it be morally justifiable, and if so, why not do it? States secede and change their geographical and political boundaries and affiliations all the time. What I’m saying is, if a state in the US wants to secede and has justifiable reasons, they should secede. I think the comparison someone made before to the US “seceding” against the British Empire is a good one.

 

[jonathan_hili]

(1) because they don’t have the constitutional right to do that and, (2) the federal government is not going to let a state leave the union and (3) there will be a huge minority of citizens who do not want to leave the United States.

With regards to (1), obviously that’s the case - but that’s precisely why a state would secede.

With regards to (2), if the federal government tried to force a state to remain in the union when the state had justifiable reasons to leave, that would be tyrannical and itself a justifiable reason to leave.

With regards to (3), those citizens that don’t want to leave can migrate to another state. After all, there might be a huge minority of citizens now who want to secede, that doesn’t mean ipso facto that they should.

 

[Fairwinds]

I guess the point is not that secession is legal, obviously it is not, but can it be morally justifiable, and if so, why not do it? States secede and change their geographical and political boundaries and affiliations all the time. What I’m saying is, if a state in the US wants to secede and has justifiable reasons, they should secede. I think the comparison someone made before to the US “seceding” against the British Empire is a good one.

you mean a majority or, more likely, a supermajority of individual citizens in in a state want to secede. that leaves the minority of individuals, which might be as high as 49.9%, who do not believe there are justifiable or desirable reasons. and there are citizens of other states with valid reasons for opposing secession.

you’d have to make the grounds for secession particular for the conversation to move anywhere.

 

[Fairwinds]

With regards to (1), obviously that’s the case - but that’s precisely why a state would secede.

With regards to (2), if the federal government tried to force a state to remain in the union when the state had justifiable reasons to leave, that would be tyrannical and itself a justifiable reason to leave.

With regards to (3), those citizens that don’t want to leave can migrate to another state. After all, there might be a huge minority of citizens now who want to secede, that doesn’t mean ipso facto that they should.

(1) it would go into rebellion, secession is not a legal act.

(2) see prior response, its not really feasible to discuss this absent the particular reasons. not liking the Uniform Commercial Code might be justifiable grounds in some eyes but not in others.

(3) forced emigration is tyrannical itself. not to raise the spectre of Godwin’s Law, but this is what happened in Europe in the late 1930s.

 

[jonathan_hili]

you mean a majority or, more likely, a supermajority of individual citizens in in a state want to secede. that leaves the minority of individuals, which might be as high as 49.9%, who do not believe there are justifiable or desirable reasons. and there are citizens of other states with valid reasons for opposing secession.

you’d have to make the grounds for secession particular for the conversation to move anywhere.

Sure. I don’t mean to suggest secession of any particular states, since I don’t know the numbers, but only that it is possible that such numbers could develop. As for citizens of other states having valid reasons to oppose secession, well, I don’t see how that is any different from English people during the 1760s-70s opposing U.S. independence. Obviously, other states and the federal government would not like it, but that should not interfere with a state’s (and people’s) natural right to self-government and independence.

 

[jonathan_hili]

(1) it would go into rebellion, secession is not a legal act.

Okay, rebellion.

(2) see prior response, its not really feasible to discuss this absent the particular reasons. not liking the Uniform Commercial Code might be justifiable grounds in some eyes but not in others.

Sure, but that depends on those who live in the state and what they believe is justifiable, within reason.

(3) forced emigration is tyrannical itself. not to raise the spectre of Godwin’s Law, but this is what happened in Europe in the late 1930s.

It wouldn’t be forced emigration. I suppose citizens would have the option. If they didn’t like the state leaving the union, they could freely leave.

 

[Brendan]

each state voted for statehood. there’s no legal way out of it, according to the terms of the union they joined. .

Really, it’s a ‘two parter’. The States voted internally to seek admission, and Congress voted to allow them entry.

You used the magic words "legal way’. Laws can be established.

There is really nothing to prevent the process from being reversed. A State voting to seek disfederation and Congress approving it.

 

[Fairwinds]

Really, it’s a ‘two parter’. The States voted internally to seek admission, and Congress voted to allow them entry.

You used the magic words "legal way’. Laws can be established.

There is really nothing to prevent the process from being reversed. A State voting to seek disfederation and Congress approving it.

I believe it would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[ahaley]

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.

Almost since the moment of its inception, the US federal government has been growing and gaining direct and indirect power. At this point, the idea that the US is a republic is little more than a paper fantasy. I suspect that the Founding Fathers would be struck dumb if they could see what the US has come to from a purely govnernmental perspective. The states these days are little more than irregularly-shaped federal administrative districts.

You’ll be glad for a stong federal government until the day that it decides it dislikes something you consider important (religious freedom, for example).

 

[pnewton]

the confederacy made up the rules about secession. the war and Texas v. White proved it wrong.

the war is over. put away the rebel yells.

“Proved”? I do not think you know what that word means.

Never forget that the Supreme Court also “proved” that blacks were property and separate but equal is okey-dokey.

 

[pnewton]

(3) forced emigration is tyrannical itself. not to raise the spectre of Godwin’s Law, but this is what happened in Europe in the late 1930s.

Too late, but your point is taken.

Seriously, I do agree that secession will ever happen. If it does, it will be mutual and legal. It is not worth the bloodshed. Better to live with tyranny than die by it. It will probably never be militarily possible to pull off. Patrick Henry is only correct if the struggle has a reasonable possibility for success and no other means exist to accomplish the same good.

 

[jonathan_hili]

It is not worth the bloodshed. Better to live with tyranny than die by it.

Gosh, PNewton - better to live with tyranny than die for freedom? I thought dying for freedom and independence was the whole point of the revolutionary war against England? By the way, happy Independence Day.