PDA

View Full Version : Do individual states have a right of secession?



Tyrsmann
19th July 10, 10:30 PM
Do Individual states have a right to secede?

Yeah it's kind of an odd question. But with all the talk of small government and other rhetoric going on it's been on my mind lately. We're a country that was founded on ideals like consent of the governed. So isn't it consistent with those principles to allow Secession? True last time we had states try to secede it don't go to well. I believe the deah toll of the Civil War was something like 500,000. But thats just right off the top of my head though.

There is also the practical side of the question. Can a state afford to Secede? I rather doubt mine can. We could certainly produce enough food but our economy would be shit. So we're obviously better of as state than we would be as an independent nation.

But even so, if an overwhelming majority of people in Iowa or any other State voted to become independent what would be wrong in just letting them go their own way and maintaining good relationships with them?

WarPhalange
20th July 10, 12:01 AM
No. The whole "preserve the Union" thing and the real reason Abe Lincoln went to war. He didn't give a rat's ass about slaves and would have let the south keep them had they just shut up and came back.

Also, coastal states would do quite well I imagine. Midland states? Forget it. They'd be fucked.

Ajamil
20th July 10, 05:42 AM
Any state has the ability to secede, but they'd have to beat the US military to do it. It's like saying you don't have to follow any law, but you have to deal with the consequences thereof.

What states do you think have even the smallest notion of doing so? I know there are separatists in Texas, and Hawaii has a small group pushing for autonomy.

resolve
20th July 10, 07:47 AM
States that have their own nuclear payload would have a sporting chance, but that's about it.

Kein Haar
20th July 10, 07:48 AM
Like Wisconsin?

resolve
20th July 10, 08:16 AM
I'm not saying they would be successful at having an independent economy or all that... I'm saying they would have a chance at holding the US Military at bay using the Nuclear weapons as a threat and using the state guard and militias as troops. Just a chance though.

I'm sure the US Military could do coordinated strikes on all the Nuclear sites (it's not like they don't know where they are)... but it's all down to the timing and whether its worth it or not to have our cheese factory back.

EvilSteve
20th July 10, 08:20 AM
During the Bush years New York Magazine ran a cover story about NYC seceding from the union. By and large, NYC pays far more to the federal gov't than the services it gets in return. It was largely written as a joke, and there are many practical reasons why it wouldn't work, but I felt it was pretty indicative of the political rifts that were forming in the country at the time.

fes_fsa
20th July 10, 11:19 AM
Any state has the ability to secede, but they'd have to beat the US military to do it. It's like saying you don't have to follow any law, but you have to deal with the consequences thereof.

States that have their own nuclear payload would have a sporting chance, but that's about it.
so... for a state to secede successfully, it really all depends on whether or not the president at the time has the balls to declare war on them.

Angry Mandrill
20th July 10, 11:32 AM
I'm saying they would have a chance at holding the US Military at bay using the Nuclear weapons as a threat and using the state guard and militias as troops. Just a chance though.

states don't have launch codes, and feds would easily disable any launch capability anyway. that would leave the option of blowing them up in place; not a very desirable outcome.

if a state really wants to go, i say let 'em. they'd be back, oh yes they would, begging with butts aloft.

Hedley LaMarr
20th July 10, 04:26 PM
Like Wisconsin?
Don't think we aren't thinking about succession.

elipson
22nd July 10, 02:03 AM
I've been told by Texans that their state is the only one that has the legal right to succede if they feel it necessary.

All this talk of the Military stopping succession is wasted air. An economic blockade/trade war would bring the state back into the fold very quickly.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
22nd July 10, 06:54 AM
I think individuals should have the right to succede or indeed eggs if they are so inclined.

Cullion
22nd July 10, 06:14 PM
I'd like to declare my house sovereign territory and not pay no more taxes.

resolve
22nd July 10, 06:17 PM
The one episode of Family Guy I really liked... Peter Griffin decides that his house is going to secede from the US.

The military points a MLRS at his house, Peter invites Castro and other US unfriendly nations to his backyard barbeques, and eventually the city just shuts off his utilities. He gets "diplomatic immunity" for acting like an ass everywhere but eventually his family can't live without water or electricity and turn against him.

Cullion
22nd July 10, 06:20 PM
I would purify the water in my rain barrel, and allow the electricity company to incorporate in my attic so they didn't have to pay tax either.

I'd need free electricity, but that's not a lot of money to them.

There might be room for other companies up there. Maybe I could get free lamb chops and tomatoes too. Marijuana would be legal in the back garden, and I could issue my own silver coins, with my face stamped on them.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
23rd July 10, 04:40 AM
VIVA CULLIONIA !!!!

ICY
23rd July 10, 05:12 AM
I think that if a seperatist party was elected to the state legistlature, and won the gubernatorial election, and organized a statewide vote on succession, and negotiated a fair compromise on things like share of the national debt, division of state/federal assets, etc...then they would probably be allowed to leave peacefully and would probably instantly become part of NAFTA, but with even closer trade ties to the US and possibly the continued use of the dollar as currency.

I'm thinking about this from a Canadian perspective, and I think the federal government would use plenty of underhanded tactics to avoid it happening, but that if all the criteria I laid out there were met...they couldn't really say "FUCK DEMOCRACY, YOU'RE GONNA DO WHAT WE SAY".

Thing is, it would just be so, so very difficult to jump all the necessary hurdles that even if a seperatist party won all the necessary elections, the actual "Should we secede?" vote would be basically impossible to win, because at that point, the federal government would spend SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY ON THE CAMPAIGN it would dwarf what had ever been spent on any election in the history of the world. Ever. To the point that by the end of it, the people who had voted for the seperatists would think the seperatist party was actually a Satanic pedophile cult that was secretly responsible for the Holocaust, Communism, Cancer, and AIDS.

Ajamil
23rd July 10, 03:53 PM
they couldn't really say "FUCK DEMOCRACY, YOU'RE GONNA DO WHAT WE SAY".
They did last time.

Kein Haar
24th July 10, 12:02 AM
If Quebec said to the U.S.: "hay guyz...can we be you??"

I wonder what we'd say.

nihilist
24th July 10, 12:53 AM
No. The whole "preserve the Union" thing and the real reason Abe Lincoln went to war. He didn't give a rat's ass about slaves and would have let the south keep them had they just shut up and came back.




No.

Slavery was the key issue and impetus for the declarations of secession.

Lincoln utilized War Powers to enact The Emancipation Proclamation.
While Lincoln would have preferred to have the slavery issue cave in on itself over time he clearly gave more than a rat's ass about slavery as evidenced by any of his quotes.



Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally -Abraham Lincoln

ICY
24th July 10, 04:21 AM
Arjuna, none of the steps I proposed was really enacted. The guys running the south ran on PRO-SLAVERY, not SEPARATIST platforms, IIRC, and no referendum was held on the specific issue of leaving the union.

Ajamil
24th July 10, 08:48 AM
Maryland was put under military control and locked down to ensure it wouldn't secede from the union and take the other half of the nation's capitol with it. Habeus Corpus was suspended.