Breaking Away: The Case for Secession

[ncordless]

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..

The perceived benefit is in decentralization which, at least theoretically, increases liberty.

It's also something that might be hard for a traditional, ancient, largely homogeneous, European nation state to understand about America. We've had pretty intense geographical sectarianism since our founding, and the argument about the relative rights of the federal and state governments is as central to our nationality as free speech or the right to shoot bad guys in the face.

 

[Zankou]

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.

Nothing in the Constitution about giving up the power to leave the union.

Plus it's a general principle of law that important rights aren't given up unless it's pretty explicit ... and nothing in the Constitution says anything about a permanent surrender of right to leave the union, that was judicially imposed by the (cough cough corrupt) S. Ct. as an aid to Union power in the 1860s, based on the exceedingly dubious reasoning ('a more perfect union' implicitly meant you were promising never to secede for any reason) quoted above.

 

[nixkid]

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.

Currently...no, not possible. Things are relatively good for everyone in America even in the shittiest states. Our federal institutions are strong and our military is the strongest its ever been.

If America falters, our federal institutions weaken, our military weakens, and people are generally discontent then I could see some state attempting it. Not sure if they would be successful, their best chance would be if there was no will among the America people to fight them but I think we'd have to fall pretty far for that to be reality.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The Constitution ain't a contract.

Can you please explain what you see as the difference and what makes the Constitution a legally binding document exempt from the usual practices of contract enforcement?

Also, I don't understand why you're trying to hammer this point of ceding authority over certain matters. I'm not disputing it and it doesn't speak to the permanency of union membership (which I am disputing due to the fact it's not addressed).

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.

Since it doesn't say the state can't leave and there's no "term" outlined in the agreement your position is undermined by the fact that a previous federal government was discarded and membership in the new one was not automatically binding. Plus, the DoI was as recent a memory at that time as 9/11 is to us.

 

[Zankou]

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

West is Best. East sucks.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's really Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa,

Whoa. What's your beef with Iowa? You don't like food?

http://www.stuffaboutstates.com/agriculture/index.html

This table lists the states in order by total agricultural receipts. California is this nation's most productive state followed by Texas and Iowa.

The top ten states provide for over 1/2 of the total agricultural production of the United States.

 

[Zankou]

We already have Texas and California in my version, so that's 2/3 of that production in my basket. Plus we can always buy that low-value Iowa corn over the int'l border, don't need that gruel production in our own economy. HFCS is cheap to ship.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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

Other than Minnesota, the best-governed states are all in the North East.

The perceived benefit is in decentralization which, at least theoretically, increases liberty.

There isn't any real rigorous theoretical support for that (the only support requires essentially defining liberty as decentralization temporarily and then equivocating). The U.S. Constitution was defended using the exact opposite reasoning, and the history of the country has shown pretty clearly that decentralization decreases liberty.

It's also something that might be hard for a traditional, ancient, largely homogeneous, European nation state to understand about America. We've had pretty intense geographical sectarianism since our founding, and the argument about the relative rights of the federal and state governments is as central to our nationality as free speech or the right to shoot bad guys in the face.

The arguments have always been about certain areas wanting to be more oppressive, though. "States rights" is just the opposite of "human rights" and is called that to make it more palatable to Americans.

 

[nixkid]

We already have Texas and California in my version, so that's 2/3 of that production in my basket. Plus we can always buy that low-value Iowa corn over the int'l border, don't need that gruel production in our own economy. HFCS is cheap to ship.

Well, if you exclude Georgia, then you'll have to import rap music and the Walking Dead so....yeah.

 

[OldGoat]

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

This republic needs some serious pruning.

Did Jack hack your account?

Usually you are sensible.

With regards to the OP...

So if a state secedes, can a county secede form the state? A city secede form the county? A prosperous neighborhood secede from the city.

There's a whole bunch of dumb in this thread.

In a republic we have representation. We also have apparently a lot of butt hurt.

 

[ncordless]

Nothing in the Constitution about giving up the power to leave the union.

Plus it's a general principle of law that important rights aren't given up unless it's pretty explicit ... and nothing in the Constitution says anything about a permanent surrender of right to leave the union, that was judicially imposed by the (cough cough corrupt) S. Ct. as an aid to Union power in the 1860s, based on the exceedingly dubious reasoning ('a more perfect union' implicitly meant you were promising never to secede for any reason) quoted above.

So you think a state can just say "I no longer have to abide by the agreement I made, and hereby unilaterally take back the powers I granted to the federal government? I, and almost every serious legal expert I've ever read, wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[nixkid]

So if a state secedes, can a county secede form the state? A city secede form the county? A prosperous neighborhood secede from the city.

I've asked this question before. There are plenty of cities which are diametrically opposed with the politics of the state like basically any large city in a red state. Same can be true with counties (rural counties in a blue state). What makes the state the ultimate form of government? The argument is typically that it is "closer to the people" than the federal government. But city and county governments are even closer to the people than state government.

 

[OldGoat]

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.

Sure there is. The precedent of secession doesn't stop at the state level. And it would lead to war.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

We already have Texas and California in my version, so that's 2/3 of that production in my basket. Plus we can always buy that low-value Iowa corn over the int'l border, don't need that gruel production in our own economy. HFCS is cheap to ship.

No worries then. :icon_chee

So if a state secedes, can a county secede form the state? A city secede form the county? A prosperous neighborhood secede from the city.

Why not? Let's say 49 states wanted one gone. They could offer to buy them out or the 49 could just all leave and start their own country with a new name. What's the problem?

Political boundaries have changed all throughout history and I don't see why this won't continue.

 

[OldGoat]

No worries then. :icon_chee



Why not? Let's say 49 states wanted one gone. They could offer to buy them out or the 49 could just all leave and start their own country with a new name. What's the problem?

Political boundaries have changed all throughout history and I don't see why this won't continue.

Other than being the dream of petulant losers? No reason at all.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The precedent of secession doesn't stop at the state level. And it would lead to war.

I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Other than being the dream of petulant losers? No reason at all.

Self-governance is for losers? I think you're too wrapped in the rah rah rah team sports mentality of nationalism.

 

[OldGoat]

I've asked this question before. There are plenty of cities which are diametrically opposed with the politics of the state like basically any large city in a red state. Same can be true with counties (rural counties in a blue state). What makes the state the ultimate form of government? The argument is typically that it is "closer to the people" than the federal government. But city and county governments are even closer to the people than state government.

Exactly. You think all of Colorado is Denver? No. California would tear itself apart. NY is not just NYC. Rural parts have more in common with each other than urban areas. Why would a prosperous city want to keep it's inner blighted core where the dregs of humanity congregate for spare change?

These people who advocate secession are stupid.

 

[Zankou]

So you think a state can just say "I no longer have to abide by the agreement I made, and hereby unilaterally take back the powers I granted to the federal government? I, and almost every serious legal expert I've ever read, wholeheartedly disagree.

No, I think it's like a contract where you *agree* to join an entity, and then when you *leave* that entity, you are no longer subject to the *conditions* of the contract governing members of that entity.

If that's hard to grasp, think of it like a gym membership, which is a type of contract. While you are a member, you are NOT free to flout your obligations under the contract. But you have the right to leave, and once you do, the contract's terms no longer applies. To the extent the contract purports to forbid you from leaving within a specific time period, however, such limitations must be expressly set forth and defined in the contract. And generally the legal remedy for leaving is never *prohibition via injunction*, anyways, but rather *monetary damages* if there *are any*. In other words, you are ALWAYS allowed to leave. You just gotta pay if you leave early.

This is a basic principle of all contract law.

 

[OldGoat]

I don't understand what you're saying.

Not surprised.

Self-governance is for losers? I think you're too wrapped in the rah rah rah team sports mentality of nationalism.

And all you are doing is making the size of the nation a bit smaller. You are not changing anything on a fundamental level. Unless you think everyone is going to be their own "nation". At which point what stops me from robbing you?

You are making the fallacious assumption that we currently do not have self-governance. We do. Secession is the desire of the petulant of having to compromise in a republic.

My desire would be to eradicate those who attempted to secede. Go all Sherman/Lincoln on them. They are too dangerous to have around.