Breaking Away: The Case for Secession

[IDL]

You can't help lying about what other people say, apparently. I said that the comparatively more freedom-loving regions of the country also have influence over the gov't and thus Southerners have not had free reign to be as oppressive and corrupt as they would like to be, and that is why they have always resisted the U.S. and why some of the crazier and dumber ones are tempted to break away. Again, it's the opposite of what you're suggesting.

This conversation is going nowhere, as usual.

Cheerio.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

That's the justification? Nothing actually in the Constitution stating the union was permanent or having in it anything that referred to the term of the contract? Seems to me a perfect union is one that allows for dissolution, because...you know...shit changes.

You need to look at the AoC to see why the argument is very persuasive.

"[T]he Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

The Constitution's language, then, about forming a 'more perfect' union would seem to sustain the perpetuity of the union while further strengthening it. The strongest arguments for a legal right to secession are found in the DoI, certainly not in the Constitution. One could reasonably surmise that the signers of the DoI believed the right to secession to be inalienable. Unfortunately, the DoI is not a legal document to which the states must adhere. The Constitution, however, is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This conversation is going nowhere, as usual.

Cheerio.

So you first lied about what I said (even though my post was right there). And then in response to my clarification, you say that it's going nowhere. Self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Maybe if you showed more basic human decency and didn't just try to spread propaganda, every thread you touch wouldn't turn to shit.

 

[nixkid]

I would love for someone to try just so Obama could unleash a hail of drones on their ass and they could see how ineffectual their little pea shooters are against decades of military overspending (Thanks Republicans).

 

[IDL]

So you first lied about what I said (even though my post was right there). And then in response to my clarification, you say that it's going nowhere. Self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it? Maybe if you showed more basic human decency and didn't just try to spread propaganda, every thread you touch wouldn't turn to shit.

Good day to you

 

[Perfidious]

Can we forcibly secede the American South, against its will? Because I'm onboard.

This republic needs some serious pruning.

Do you consider Florida the South? Or just the Southern northern parts (that felt odd to type)?

 

[nixkid]

Do you consider Florida the South? Or just the Southern northern parts (that felt odd to type)?

ALL of FL must go. Shit, the south might not even want FL.

 

[ncordless]

Do you consider Florida the South? Or just the Southern northern parts (that felt odd to type)?

We'll keep Miami for clubbing purposes and Disney World. The rest of it can go to the Confederate Sh!thole of America.

 

[Thames]

Can someone clarify for me if secession of a state is actually part of some plausible reality? Could it actually happen in reality, and not just in theory?

Or are these speakers just wasting their time?

I know that Tom Woods was part of a white supremacist group once (had to look him up because some AE follower kept linking to his videos). So I guess that's kind of a bumper if you want to sell your reason for wanting secession in a non-stigmatised way i.e. fleeing from a tyranical government, and not seceding because you actually want to set up a tyranical government yourself. Given the history of the south.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Can someone clarify for me if secession of a state is actually part of some plausible reality? Could it actually happen in reality, and not just in theory?

Or are these speakers just wasting their time?

It is not plausible and couldn't really happen. The speakers are probably profiting off the event, both directly and indirectly so they're not wasting their time. The attendees would be wasting their time and money.

I know that Tom Woods was part of a white supremacist group once (had to look him up because some AE follower kept linking to his videos). So I guess that's kind of a bumper if you want to sell your reason for wanting secession in a non-stigmatised way i.e. fleeing from a tyranical government, and not fleeing because you actually want to set up a tyranical government yourself.

Paul and Rockwell also have interesting histories in that area. I would say it's clearly about fleeing in order to set up a tyrannical gov't (apparently, even at the expense of economic prosperity) for the true believers (which I'm not sure if the speakers are).

 

[Perfidious]

ALL of FL must go. Shit, the south might not even want FL.

You sound jelis. Beaches in most of Murika are complete trash compared to Florida. And we bring plenty of entertainment to the rest of the nation in the form of weird news. Where are you from? It better be a good place or they might come after your state too.

First they came for the Floridians, and I didnt speak up because I did not live in Florida...

 

[ncordless]

That's the justification? Nothing actually in the Constitution stating the union was permanent or having in it anything that referred to the term of the contract? Seems to me a perfect union is one that allows for dissolution, because...you know...shit changes.

The state gave up a portion of its sovereignty to the Union when it joined. They can't unilaterally take it back absent armed rebellion. It is possible to leave if they convince the Union to oblige it. But they union would not oblige it.

Take Texas for instance, is the US just going to give up Fort Hood? Hell no. And, just like Fort Sumter, it would just be a powder keg ready to blow.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You need to look at the AoC to see why the argument is very persuasive.

"[T]he Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."

The Constitution's language, then, about forming a 'more perfect' union would seem to sustain the perpetuity of the union while further strengthening it. The strongest arguments for a legal right to secession are found in the DoI, certainly not in the Constitution. One could reasonably surmise that the signers of the DoI believed the right to secession to be inalienable. Unfortunately, the DoI is not a legal document to which the states must adhere. The Constitution, however, is.

That sounds like the problem then. The AoC isn't a binding legal document eithr. It was replaced. Personally I'd go with the document more revered currently and the rallying cry for the nation's founding (DoI) than one that was (practically) immediately thrown out and replaced. The Constitution itself either addresses the term of the agreement or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I don't see how it can automatically be ruled in perpetuity. Especially when the overriding principle America was founded on was self-governance.

Might makes right, but all things considered there's no legit argument to forcing a state to remain affiliated with the union.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The state gave up a portion of its sovereignty to the Union when it joined. They can't unilaterally take it back absent armed rebellion. It is possible to leave if they convince the Union to oblige it. But they union would not oblige it.

Take Texas for instance, is the US just going to give up Fort Hood? Hell no. And, just like Fort Sumter, it would just be a powder keg ready to blow.

Yeah, like marriage. But somehow there's non-violent divorce these days. The arguments about how the country wouldn't want to give up resources (for whatever selfish reasons exist) isn't anything I'm disputing. I'm disputing the belief that your ancestors (maybe) voting to join a club hundreds of years ago doesn't obligate everyone to continue to be in that club. I'm also disputing that the legal document pertaining to the founding of the federal government addresses the permanency of membership in the union in any way that would stand up in a contract law case.

 

[ncordless]

Yeah, like marriage. But somehow there's non-violent divorce these days. The arguments about how the country wouldn't want to give up resources (for whatever selfish reasons exist) isn't anything I'm disputing. I'm disputing the belief that your ancestors (maybe) voting to join a club hundreds of years ago doesn't obligate everyone to continue to be in that club. I'm also disputing that the legal document pertaining to the founding of the federal government addresses the permanency of membership in the union in any way that would stand up in a contract law case.

The Constitution ain't a contract. It's a constitution.

The Constitution says, amongst other things:
1. The federal government has the right to regulate commerce among the states.
2. War powers are exclusively the province of the federal government. Including suppressing "insurrections". The state doesn't have the right to establish its own army.
3. Contracts Clause: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation . . . "
4. Import-export Clause: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States"
5. Compact Clause: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
6. Treason: against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Presumably, anyone who is trying to take land away from the US is an enemy.
7. Federal Property Clause: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States." Therefore any federal property in Texas or anywhere else is the feds, and the state has no right to make rules regarding it.
8. Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
9. The Oath Clause "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". The state legislature is oath-bound to protect and defend the Constitution. Not revoke it.

So here are just some parts where the states no longer have the right to do something that a sovereign nation would do, and no remedy besides Constitutional Amendment to get any of that authority back. In constrast, there is no mention whatsoever of a state being able to leave the Union. From that, it should be fairly obvious that a State can't just decide it doesn't have to follow the Constitution anymore and can be its own, separate nation without the consent of the sovereign which holds all those powers the states gave it.

Dealing with your first concern, states, unlike people, don't die. The states joined the club. They are still the same states they were then. This isn't a case of people being bound by their ancestors decisions, this a case of a sovereign entity willingly giving up the portion of its sovereignty which makes it an independent nation. If you don't want to be an American, you are free to leave and renounce your citizenship. The states though are bound to the Constitution with no right of revocation absent constitutional amendment.

 

[Zankou]

Do you consider Florida the South? Or just the Southern northern parts (that felt odd to type)?

Florida and Texas can stay ... for now. It's really Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Miss, Alabam, Georgia, N/S Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky that we should jettison in the first instance. Ideally, we'd also claim a strip of Eastern seaboard to connect to the North, so that the Deep South would be limited to sea access via the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm on the fence about Virginia/W. Va.

Now that I think about it, it would be a lot easier to basically have the West U.S. secede ... keeping the Dakotas and Texas (oil and such) but otherwise slicing off the rest of the nation.

 

[nixkid]

You sound jelis. Beaches in most of Murika are complete trash compared to Florida. And we bring plenty of entertainment to the rest of the nation in the form of weird news. Where are you from? It better be a good place or they might come after your state too.

First they came for the Floridians, and I didnt speak up because I did not live in Florida...

You're right about that. The people are the dumbest in America (even over Texas...congrats, thats quite an accomplishment) but there is value in the water front property. Maybe we should invade, round all of guys up, throw you in detention centers and then take over the beaches.

 

[Thames]

It is not plausible and couldn't really happen. The speakers are probably profiting off the event, both directly and indirectly so they're not wasting their time. The attendees would be wasting their time and money.

Paul and Rockwell also have interesting histories in that area. I would say it's clearly about fleeing in order to set up a tyrannical gov't (apparently, even at the expense of economic prosperity) for the true believers (which I'm not sure if the speakers are).

Alright then. Thanks.

It's a strange thing. I can't really see how they would benefit from seceding. Even if they're aspiring slave-owners or just really badly wants to discriminate against some demographics. It seems like far fetched realities in a modern country, even if they did manage to secede.

Perhaps it's gun ownership laws? Too high taxes? I can't see it. I'm sure those speakers will enlighten me.. Oh yeah.. There's Ron Paul.. So.. From that last thread... Yeah..

 

[Thames]

Florida and Texas can stay ... for now. It's really Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Miss, Alabam, Georgia, N/S Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky that we should jettison in the first instance. Ideally, we'd also claim a strip of Eastern seaboard to connect to the North, so that the Deep South would be limited to sea access via the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm on the fence about Virginia/W. Va.

Now that I think about it, it would be a lot easier to basically have the West U.S. secede ... keeping the Dakotas and Texas (oil and such) but otherwise slicing off the rest of the nation.

Whaaaat. I thought everyone loved New York? Or those sweet and innocent north-eastern states?

 

[Bukowski82]

Texas is a great state... But some of it's citizens are legit crazy.