Breaking Away: The Case for Secession

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 that entity.

If that's hard to grasp, think of it like a gym membership. 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.

This is a basic principle of all contract law.

The reality of the union does not work like that. How about you tell the US government you don't want to be under their rule yet you want to keep your land in their political boundaries. Or better yet make it a sovereign Zankou-ville. No amount of legal arguments or fancy words is going to succeed in seceding. Better have a bigger army than the union.
 
Well that's true Old Goat, but that's just the point. The Union proved to have a bigger army, and it managed to kill more people.

Ultimately there is far too much capital interest in maintaining a united market, so it's just never going to happen. You'd sooner see Mexico and Canada forcibly annexed, in practical terms, than you'd see a secession.

It is interesting to see Greece right now being poised on the precipice of a similar issue, where they are caught between the overwhelming need to be part of the EU from a market perspective and the devastating social conflicts within their nation.
 
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.

That's all I'm saying. Seems pretty obvious but the truth of the matter is clouded by agenda. Like we see below.

Not surprised.



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.

Nice quip to cover up your lack of coherent argument. :)

And I'm not doing anything except supporting the notion that the DoI isn't the hogwash you seem to believe. Keep America a good country where people want to be here and nobody wants to leave. And if people want to leave what do you really care? Does it hurt your ego or your pocket book and that's your justification for subjugation?

I'm not making any fallacies. If you've got a better term for people erecting the government they want to live by and engaging in the political associations they see fit then let me have it and I'll use it.

Sounds to me like you're the dangerous one with your belief everyone must always be locked into the political structure they inherited.
 
Well that's true Old Goat, but that's just the point. The Union proved to have a bigger army, and it managed to kill more people.

Ultimately there is far too much capital interest in maintaining a united market, so it's just never going to happen. You'd sooner see Mexico and Canada forcibly annexed, in practical terms, than you'd see a secession.

It is interesting to see Greece right now being poised on the precipice of a similar issue, where they are caught between the overwhelming need to be part of the EU from a market perspective and the devastating social conflicts within their nation.

And that's why I like you. You recognize the true source of power.
 
Well that's true Old Goat, but that's just the point. The Union proved to have a bigger army, and it managed to kill more people.

Ultimately there is far too much capital interest in maintaining a united market, so it's just never going to happen. You'd sooner see Mexico and Canada forcibly annexed, in practical terms, than you'd see a secession.

It is interesting to see Greece right now being poised on the precipice of a similar issue, where they are caught between the overwhelming need to be part of the EU from a market perspective and the devastating social conflicts within their nation.

I wonder how Hawaii would do claiming independence in an international court.
 
That's all I'm saying. Seems pretty obvious but the truth of the matter is clouded by agenda. Like we see below.



Nice quip to cover up your lack of coherent argument. :)

And I'm not doing anything except supporting the notion that the DoI isn't the hogwash you seem to believe. Keep America a good country where people want to be here and nobody wants to leave. And if people want to leave what do you really care? Does it hurt your ego or your pocket book and that's your justification for subjugation?

I'm not making any fallacies. If you've got a better term for people erecting the government they want to live by and engaging in the political associations they see fit then let me have it and I'll use it.

Sounds to me like you're the dangerous one with your belief everyone must always be locked into the political structure they inherited.

They can leave. But they aren't taking any territory with them.

Bye.
 
I wonder how Hawaii would do claiming independence in an international court.

An international court? Are you serious? The UN and other associated international groups can't do anything without one of the big 5 doing it for them.
 
And I'm not doing anything except supporting the notion that the DoI isn't the hogwash you seem to believe. Keep America a good country where people want to be here and nobody wants to leave. And if people want to leave what do you really care? Does it hurt your ego or your pocket book and that's your justification for subjugation?

You're acting like there's a wall around the country. People are free to leave whenever they want. They're not free to claim U.S. territory. That takes force.
 
They can leave. But they aren't taking any territory with them.

Bye.

Yes, because it's all yours. Forever and ever.

We should cross check this thread with anybody squawking about how the Native Americans got screwed and need reparations. Might makes right so get over it. Shouldna' signed them treaties. Too late now. Get out and vote if you don't like your reservations. :icon_lol:

An international court? Are you serious? The UN and other associated international groups can't do anything without one of the big 5 doing it for them.

You do know there are groups looking to form a separate native government and Obama has talked about conferring the same status as Native American tribes? So yeah, I'd find that interesting to see how it would play out in court if they were looking to break away altogether. You on the other hand would feel threatened somehow and would likely rant and rave about how stupid everyone is for thinking they could somehow change governments.

When you were forced to read the DoI in school did it upset you? :icon_chee
 
You're acting like there's a wall around the country. People are free to leave whenever they want. They're not free to claim U.S. territory. That takes force.

I'm not acting like that at all. I'm acting like the sovereign units that make up the union (i.e. the states) are not bound by (anything written in) the Constitution to remain. You've got a Constitutional argument or are we just going to reiterate that many assholes in the USA would prevent secession out of spite so those looking to leave will need lots of outside money and guns?
 
The reality of the union does not work like that. How about you tell the US government you don't want to be under their rule yet you want to keep your land in their political boundaries. Or better yet make it a sovereign Zankou-ville. No amount of legal arguments or fancy words is going to succeed in seceding. Better have a bigger army than the union.


You sound like a cynical shill. The most mundane kind.

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

Who would fight? South wants to secede and by now most of the North want them to secede. Sounds like a win-win.
They can have that bountiful Georgian/Tennessee/Texas/Kentucky land.
 
Last edited:
Yes, because it's all yours. Forever and ever.

We should cross check this thread with anybody squawking about how the Native Americans got screwed and need reparations. Might makes right so get over it. Shouldna' signed them treaties. Too late now. Get out and vote if you don't like your reservations. :icon_lol:



You do know there are groups looking to form a separate native government and Obama has talked about conferring the same status as Native American tribes? So yeah, I'd find that interesting to see how it would play out in court if they were looking to break away altogether. You on the other hand would feel threatened somehow and would likely rant and rave about how stupid everyone is for thinking they could somehow change governments.

When you were forced to read the DoI in school did it upset you? :icon_chee

I will let JvS answer for me.

You're acting like there's a wall around the country. People are free to leave whenever they want. They're not free to claim U.S. territory. That takes force.
 
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.

"We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come." - J. Marshall

The Constitution is not a mere contract, and basic principles of contract law, or statutory interpretation for that matter, are not controlling.

And since we are analogizing to other areas of the law for insight, I think a more befitting one is property law. States had a bundle of sovereignty sticks. They gave some of those away to the federal government. They can't get them back unless the federal government gives them back.
 
Well then it's not exactly an agreement. And the constitution can still endure if members leave it, just as 24 Hour Fitness did not erupt in flames and disappear when you cancelled your gym membership.

It's really a question of the extent to which people should be given the democratic right to choose their own governance ... but that runs against the principles of centralized control, both as political action by the centralized state and as against the political interests of capital, both of which inherently despise local democratic autonomy.

Btw, I'm not terribly against either, my only interest in secession is in getting rid of economically underperforming states, just call a spade a spade. Everybody loves democracy until they aren't allowed to control other people, then suddenly democracy is subject to 'higher principles,' typically some sort of divine order that means the other side has forfeited its right to determine its own destiny in accordance with democratic principles.
 
Well then it's not exactly an agreement. And the constitution can still endure if members leave it, just as 24 Hour Fitness did not erupt in flames and disappear when you cancelled your gym membership.

It's really a question of the extent to which people should be given the democratic right to choose their own governance ... but that runs against the principles of centralized control, both as political action by the centralized state and as against the political interests of capital, both of which inherently despise local democratic autonomy.

It was an agreement, just as if I sell you a piece of my property in fee simple absolute was an agreement. The States gave up several key pieces of their sovereignty in return for membership in the union. If 200 years down the road I decide I want my property back and will pay you back, it doesn't mean I get to do so.
 
Sure, the question is whether they gave up that sovereignty *in perpetuity with no residual ability to withdraw from the agreement*. With any sale of a good, there is no contract term. The good is just sold; that's the definition of a sale (there is nothing further to perform, and the contract has no term).

On the other hand, joining another entity is not assumed to permanently dissolve your identity, such that you can NEVER terminate that 24 Hour Fitness contract.

Generally that's the kind of 'serious issue' that would need to be specified in ANY agreement. It's why, when an agreement lacks a specific term, the assumption is not that the agreement can never be terminated no matter what and all rights have been ceded forever, but rather that it is *terminable at will*. If you want to argue otherwise, you usually need to show that somebody actually clearly agreed, in writing, to what you are claiming.
 
I'm not acting like that at all. I'm acting like the sovereign units that make up the union (i.e. the states) are not bound by (anything written in) the Constitution to remain.

So your problem here is that the "states" are not "sovereign units that makes up the union."

You've got a Constitutional argument or are we just going to reiterate that many assholes in the USA would prevent secession out of spite so those looking to leave will need lots of outside money and guns?

Assholes who want to create tinpot dictatorships and idiots who want to serve under them are free to do so, but not on U.S. soil.
 
Old TJ, what a kook. Good thing he and others armed themselves. All the more reason for the 2nd Amendment, since some people can't seem to accept change and rejection. :icon_lol:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
 
States aren't sovereign? .... they surely are.

It's a basic principle of American law that the states have retained sovereignty, which is why if you want to sue them you are subject to the defense of *sovereign immunity*; likewise, the Indian nations have retained sovereignty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

This often trips people up when they try to sue these entities, they assume they are just freely subject to suit. Nein, mein Freund. Same with the Feds, btw, I can't tell you how often people misunderstand the Federal Tort Claims Act and how it works.
 
Back
Top