NationStates Jolt Archive

The civil war (supposedly*) put an end to the question of the states actually having a right to secede.

But my question is should they be able to and why or why not?

* Yes some will argue that point, but lets try and stick to the question of should the right exist at all.

It would be stupid to break up now, yeah? When the US has the rest of the world by the gonads...

of course they should - provided it is really the wishes of a significant majority of the population of that state.

of course they should - provided it is really the wishes of a significant majority of the population of that state.
Why? The entire stated reason for the Cival War was the dispute over that very thing!

I say yes...if they can back themselves up with the military strength to keep us from taking them back.

Why? The entire stated reason for the Cival War was the dispute over that very thing!

nah. the stated reason for seceding was that damned abolitionist lincoln getting elected. the reason for the war was that the south attacked federal property. and you could hardly argue that the entire population of the southern states was asked if they'd prefer to stay or go.

Yes, I believe the States have a right to secede from the Union. As did Jefferson, I believe.

Why?

Here (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html) are some darn good reasons. ;)
A fair number of them could be levied against the US federal government today.

might makes right, and states acquire the "right" to secede if their people become militarily powerful enough to successfully rebel against the federal army. whether states can legally secede or not has never been, and will not be, settled by quibblings over centuries old documents or political philosophy. If enough people believe that the federal government is tyrannical and must be resisted by force, then all the more power to the secessionists, since no one can stop them.

Provided they can muster enough support from the rest of the union, they can secede. They can't do it unilaterally however.

might makes right, and states acquire the "right" to secede if their people become militarily powerful enough to successfully rebel against the federal army. whether states can legally secede or not has never been, and will not be, settled by quibblings over centuries old documents or political philosophy. If enough people believe that the federal government is tyrannical and must be resisted by force, then all the more power to the secessionists, since no one can stop them.

Provided they can muster enough support from the rest of the union, they can secede. They can't do it unilaterally however.

But the question isn't "can they?", but "should they be able to?"

I say yes...if they can back themselves up with the military strength to keep us from taking them back.

:confused: They should be able to secede if they can fight off an attempt at disallowing it? That seems contradictory.

I am a southerner, and I believe there is no circumstance in which states have a right to secede. THis right would undermne the entire purpose of the United States. This country would be torn apart with the same sectionalist politics that precipitated civil war. I love North Carolina, and our citizens fought bravely in the Civil War, as did the Union soldiers, but we fought for the wrong cause.

America shall be a nation united, else it must cease to be.

nah. the stated reason for seceding was that damned abolitionist lincoln getting elected. the reason for the war was that the south attacked federal property. and you could hardly argue that the entire population of the southern states was asked if they'd prefer to stay or go.
The proximate cause of the Union attacking the South was the secession of Southern States. South Carolina was the first to seceed and launched an attack against Fort Sumpter because it was now seen as a "foreign" installation on South Carolina soil.

The reason for secession was that the South considered an assault on the institution of slavery an attack on "Southern rights," and on the economic foundation of the primarily agrarian South which depended on slave labor.

Antidepressant Users']I am a southerner, and I believe there is no circumstance in which states have a right to secede. THis right would undermne the entire purpose of the United States. This country would be torn apart with the same sectionalist politics that precipitated civil war. I love North Carolina, and our citizens fought bravely in the Civil War, as did the Union soldiers, but we fought for the wrong cause.

America shall be a nation united, else it must cease to be.
On a totally unrelated note...what's the [NS] in front of your name? Is there something going on that no one's telling me about? Cause I've been seeing more and more of those tags lately.

Antidepressant Users']I am a southerner, and I believe there is no circumstance in which states have a right to secede. THis right would undermne the entire purpose of the United States. This country would be torn apart with the same sectionalist politics that precipitated civil war. I love North Carolina, and our citizens fought bravely in the Civil War, as did the Union soldiers, but we fought for the wrong cause.

America shall be a nation united, else it must cease to be.

So, to take an example, if the federal government were to engage, specifically and unquestionably, in the type of acts that were listed in the Decalaration of Independence (see link above), against one state or group of states, they shouldn't be able to secede? Never? Even after exhausting all other recourses?

But the question isn't "can they?", but "should they be able to?"

Well that's not a very meaningful question, because they can. And you couldn't stop them without rewriting the entire consitution. Thus to stop them, the US, as we know it, would have to cease to exist.

It's like asking should england have the ability to become france.

Can they? No one knows! The Constitution is silent on the matter, which is why it's still a divisive question (Incidentally, New England, possibly into the Mid Atlantic, experienced cries for secession in the early and mid 1800s)

Should they? In theory yes, in practice, no.

The principles behind the Declaration Of Independence - behind all liberal political theory, which is founded upon the idea that the liberty of the individual is paramount, whence "liberal" - necessitate even violent revolution if necessary to remove oneself from tyrrany. Secession is preferable to revolt, I hope.

No, because there's little practical point to it. In cases such as East Timor, sure. But secession is a dangerous thing that sets a dangerous precedent. There are hundreds of stateless nations - nations of people, not countries, there is a difference - that would love to have their own nation-states. Specific to the US, it would be rolling back centuries of cooperation.

As a sidenote - South Carolina's forces fired the first shots of the American Civil War (unless you count the raid on Harper's Ferry), and that state and others had seceded even before Lincoln took office. The USA didn't start the war, they just finished it.

Can they? No one knows! The Constitution is silent on the matter, which is why it's still a divisive question (Incidentally, New England, possibly into the Mid Atlantic, experienced cries for secession in the early and mid 1800s)

Should they? In theory yes, in practice, no.

The principles behind the Declaration Of Independence - behind all liberal political theory, which is founded upon the idea that the liberty of the individual is paramount, whence "liberal" - necessitate even violent revolution if necessary to remove oneself from tyrrany. Secession is preferable to revolt, I hope.

No, because there's little practical point to it. In cases such as East Timor, sure. But secession is a dangerous thing that sets a dangerous precedent. There are hundreds of stateless nations - nations of people, not countries, there is a difference - that would love to have their own nation-states. Specific to the US, it would be rolling back centuries of cooperation.

As a sidenote - South Carolina's forces fired the first shots of the American Civil War (unless you count the raid on Harper's Ferry), and that state and others had seceded even before Lincoln took office. The USA didn't start the war, they just finished it.


*shakes head* mumbles something about article V.

Should they?

100 years ago: maybe.

Today, with the way the government has evolved: No.

On a totally unrelated note...what's the [NS] in front of your name? Is there something going on that no one's telling me about? Cause I've been seeing more and more of those tags lately.

AFAIK it's to distinguish an NS user from a pre-existing Jolt user with the same name.

Well that's not a very meaningful question, because they can. And you couldn't stop them without rewriting the entire consitution. Thus to stop them, the US, as we know it, would have to cease to exist.

It's like asking should england have the ability to become france.

Nope.
To clarify, my question is:
Should the states have a specific right (as in written into the constitution) allowing them a process by which to peacefully dissolve their ties with the union?

*shakes head* mumbles something about article V.

You mean amendments to the Constitution? ;)

You mean Article IV.

IV doesn't speak to leaving - only admittance, which is precisely why no one knows if, legally, Constitutionally, a state may secede. The only test case in history says "no".

I don't see why they couldn't, but given that regional differences no longer exsist as they did during the Civil War (I'm not talking about the slavery issue, but more along the lines of instustrial North vs Agg South), I do not see it happening anytime soon. Americans have moved around too much and the culture and view as being American first and Texan second is more the norm. More people have lived in many states as opposed to one family staying in just one state for generations.

So, to take an example, if the federal government were to engage, specifically and unquestionably, in the type of acts that were listed in the Decalaration of Independence (see link above), against one state or group of states, they shouldn't be able to secede? Never? Even after exhausting all other recourses?
That's an interesting question.

If there were sufficient numbers of people ( with sufficient firepower - most unlikely, that! ) who thought that it was time to replace the exisiting government, you could make a pretty good argument that they had the moral right to do so. Actually doing it is another thing entirely. But whether those circumstances would justify a State seceeding or not is a thorny question. My personal take on it is that the issue was forever settled by the Civil War and no State may ever seceed from the Union.

So, to take an example, if the federal government were to engage, specifically and unquestionably, in the type of acts that were listed in the Decalaration of Independence (see link above), against one state or group of states, they shouldn't be able to secede? Never? Even after exhausting all other recourses?

Ah, but that's what revolution's for! As a last result.

I think it's moot - any attempt to secede, at least anywhere along the lines of the CSA, would be taken as revolution in fact if not in name.

In one sense or another, yes, the people have that right - it's what allowed East Timor to secede from Indonesia, and the 15 former Soviet Republics to secede (it helped that it was brokered by the UN, in the first, and that the USSR was indecisive and weak in the second - but in the US, it would be nothing but bloody).

Nope.
To clarify, my question is:
Should the states have a specific right (as in written into the constitution) allowing them a process by which to peacefully dissolve their ties with the union?

Okay,



Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

So, as I said before, provided that there is sufficient support in the rest of the states, they already have that right. So yes, there is already a process written into the constitution.

You mean amendments to the Constitution? ;)

You mean Article IV.

IV doesn't speak to leaving - only admittance, which is precisely why no one knows if, legally, Constitutionally, a state may secede. The only test case in history says "no".

No I mean V.

Okay,



So, as I said before, provided that there is sufficient support in the rest of the states, they already have that right. So yes, there is already a process written into the constitution.

If secession is "written into the constitution", then so is genocide, provided an amendment to that effect is approved.

The potentiality of a right is not the same thing as the possession of a right. Because the Constitution could be amended to include a newly created right that never existed before does not mean that it already exists.

So, no, there is no "right" to secession in the Constitution. As previously stated, the Constitution says nothing about it. Since it is built upon the foundation of limited government - that is, governments, federal and state - only have the rights and powers explicitly granted, and have no powers not granted, until such time as the Constitution is amended to allow for secession, there is no right to secession.

However, like I've said, it hasn't been "decided" legally. Some reading of the Constitution may very well allow for secession - I very much doubt it. What I am sure of is that since the Constitution can be amended does not mean that therefore states have an unstated right that has not already been added to it. If that were the case, then every right one could ever dream up already belongs to the people, the states, and the federal government.

No I mean V.
Well, so far Article V has provided the peaceful mechanisms for resolving potential conflicts, other than in the case of the Civil War. Hopefully, this will preclude the necessity for any revolution or secession.

If secession is "written into the constitution", then so is genocide, provided an amendment to that effect is approved.

The potentiality of a right is not the same thing as the possession of a right. Because the Constitution could be amended to include a newly created right that never existed before does not mean that it already exists.

So, no, there is no "right" to secession in the Constitution. As previously stated, the Constitution says nothing about it. Since it is built upon the foundation of limited government - that is, governments, federal and state - only have the rights and powers explicitly granted, and have no powers not granted, until such time as the Constitution is amended to allow for secession, there is no right to secession.

However, like I've said, it hasn't been "decided" legally. Some reading of the Constitution may very well allow for secession - I very much doubt it. What I am sure of is that since the Constitution can be amended does not mean that therefore states have an unstated right that has not already been added to it. If that were the case, then every right one could ever dream up already belongs to the people, the states, and the federal government.


As far as I read article V, anything is permissible - absent changes to slavery within a certian time period - as long as there is sufficient support for it. Further, there is the "right" to petition for these changes under the wording of article V.

So then right to petition for secesion exists. I never said there was a right to secession per se, only that there is a constitutional mechanism that allows it.

If you have any inapposite authority in respect of article V, I would love to see it.

Well, so far Article V has provided the peaceful mechanisms for resolving potential conflicts, other than in the case of the Civil War. Hopefully, this will preclude the necessity for any revolution or secession.

I understand that. But to say that V does not have inherent in it the power to grant secession seems, at first blush, facially ridiculous.


Fair enough.

Okay,



So, as I said before, provided that there is sufficient support in the rest of the states, they already have that right. So yes, there is already a process written into the constitution.

Ok. Kind of a cop out, IMO, but ok. ;)
So would you support an amendment that, in essence, states that every state has a clear right of secession and outlines the process?

As far as I read article V, anything is permissible - absent changes to slavery within a certian time period - as long as there is sufficient support for it. Further, there is the "right" to petition for these changes under the wording of article V.

So then right to petition for secesion exists. I never said there was a right to secession per se, only that there is a constitutional mechanism that allows it.

If you have any inapposite authority in respect of article V, I would love to see it.

I understand that. But to say that V does not have inherent in it the power to grant secession seems, at first blush, facially ridiculous.


Fair enough.

In other words the states have the right to ask for the right to secede, not a specifically enumerated right to do so.

Should they have a specifically enumerated right to do secede?

(edit: A right enumerated in the original constitution as distinguished from an amendment....)

As far as I read article V, anything is permissible - absent changes to slavery within a certian time period - as long as there is sufficient support for it. Further, there is the "right" to petition for these changes under the wording of article V.

So then right to petition for secesion exists. I never said there was a right to secession per se, only that there is a constitutional mechanism that allows it.

If you have any inapposite authority in respect of article V, I would love to see it.

"they already have that right" - but they don't. Can the states and the people draft, approve, and ratify an amendment to grant that right? Yes. There is a vast difference between alreading having a right, and having "a right to petition".

I, milady, while heavily British in blood, am an American. I will contend that I know the Constitution of the UK (or wherever exactly you are, I only know that you're a "British Citizen") better than you do when I am a scholar of that Constitution (incidentally, can anyone really "know" an unwritten Constitution?). Perhaps you also know the Constitution of the State Of New York as well?

Ignoring the fact that you identify "right to petition" for a right with "they already have that right", which is not just a Constitutional fallacy but a simple fallacy of logic, and the fact that I've had years of in depth study of the Constitution, Declaration, Jefferson, Locke, etc, et al, we'll leave it as "I know my country better than you do." ;)

Now, if there's anything else to discuss on this matter (Article V does not grant a right of secession anymore than it grants a right to annex Canada!), we can avoid any future ad hominem (i.e. personal) attacks, neh?

So would you support an amendment that, in essence, states that every state has a clear right of secession and outlines the process?
Not only no, but Hell No!

Now, if there's anything else to discuss on this matter (Article V does not grant a right of secession anymore than it grants a right to annex Canada!), we can avoid any future ad hominem (i.e. personal) attacks, neh?
Heh! You guys are so funny! :D

Ok. Kind of a cop out, IMO, but ok. ;)
So would you support an amendment that, in essence, states that every state has a clear right of secession and outlines the process?

Honestly, I don't see why it is a cop out. It is, after all, there in black letters.

As to the amendment, I don't know. I couldn't decide until the issue actually came up and I could judge on the specific facts of the case. At the moment your are asking me to opine on a whole set of potential hypothetical situations, so any answer I gave would be ill considered and subject to counter example.

(God, I sound like a bad guy in an Ayn Rand novel).

In other words the states have the right to ask for the right to secede, not a specifically enumerated right to do so.

Should they have a specifically enumerated right to do secede?

I'd like to say yes, in theory... but Eutrusca puts it best: "Hell No!"

Heh! You guys are so funny! :D

I was a stand up philosopher in a past life...

yes, but only if they agree to eat french cheese

I was a stand up philosopher in a past life...
LOL! Thanks for the warning! :D

I'd like to say yes, in theory... but Eutrusca puts it best: "Hell No!"
:D

"they already have that right" - but they don't. Can the states and the people draft, approve, and ratify an amendment to grant that right? Yes. There is a vast difference between alreading having a right, and having "a right to petition".

I, milady, while heavily British in blood, am an American. I will contend that I know the Constitution of the UK (or wherever exactly you are, I only know that you're a "British Citizen") better than you do when I am a scholar of that Constitution (incidentally, can anyone really "know" an unwritten Constitution?). Perhaps you also know the Constitution of the State Of New York as well?

Ignoring the fact that you identify "right to petition" for a right with "they already have that right", which is not just a Constitutional fallacy but a simple fallacy of logic, and the fact that I've had years of in depth study of the Constitution, Declaration, Jefferson, Locke, etc, et al, we'll leave it as "I know my country better than you do." ;)

Now, if there's anything else to discuss on this matter (Article V does not grant a right of secession anymore than it grants a right to annex Canada!), we can avoid any future ad hominem (i.e. personal) attacks, neh?


Eh? I don't understand a word of that.

I suppose you are saying that an amendment under article V could not be passed granting the secession of New York from the United States. I would like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Also, as far as I know, the constitution of New York is subject to periodic renewal, and can be amended from time to time as the people require, but I don't know what bearing that has on anything.

Edit: As to your Canada point, you do know what ultra vires is don't you?

Honestly, I don't see why it is a cop out. It is, after all, there in black letters.

Because it's not actually spelled out as a right to secession.

As to the amendment, I don't know. I couldn't decide until the issue actually came up and I could judge on the specific facts of the case. At the moment your are asking me to opine on a whole set of potential hypothetical situations, so any answer I gave would be ill considered and subject to counter example.

(God, I sound like a bad guy in an Ayn Rand novel).


Fair enough. :) Can I ask what if an amendment were introduced today simply stating "Every state shall have the right to dissolve it's bonds with the union." and giving a process for doing so?

Because it's not actually spelled out as a right to secession.

Well - or at least my impression was - that is not what you asked. I was under the impression that you wished to discuss whether or not states could secede peaceably. And I said they could, provided that they had sufficient support in the rest of the union, hence your point was somewhat moot. I don't think that anyone has offered any evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I didn't fully grasp what you are getting at.


Fair enough. :) Can I ask what if an amendment were introduced today simply stating "Every state shall have the right to dissolve it's bonds with the union." and giving a process for doing so?

Actually I probably would, but I would insist that there was some type of plebecite of all residents - note, residents not citizens - of that state, and that there was a large supermajority requirement for it to be carried.

Eh? I don't understand a word of that.

You've made that admirably clear. There is a difference between having a right, and having the potential to have a right. I know my own country's ground law better than someone from another country. The same should apply to you, I would think. Likewise, I know my own state's law better than a non-citizen does. Of course, I know both better than most of my fellow citizens, but our public education system ain't too hot these days...


I suppose you are saying that an amendment under article V could not be passed granting the secession of New York from the United States. I would like to know how you arrived at that conclusion.

Also, as far as I know, the constitution of New York is subject to periodic renewal, and can be amended from time to time as the people require, but I don't know what bearing that has on anything.

Edit: As to your Canada point, you do know what ultra vires is don't you?

When you arrive at conclusions that I have never, and will never, make, that have nothing to do with what I've stated, that seems to be a good indication that the discussion has reached the time at which it should be laid to rest.

(Legal terminology finds its home in the Constitution, certainly - but law is based IN the supreme law of any country. Ultra vires has standing under the Constitution, in the sense that it is one of limited powers, but, as you've echoed, the Constitution can be amended. Just as it can be amended to allow for secession, it can be amended to allow for anything.

The Articles Of Confederation allowed for Canada to join as a state. The colonists invaded Canada at one point early in the Revolution. The USA has annexed a fair bit of territory before - beyond the Constitution's jurisdiction or not!)

You've made that admirably clear. There is a difference between having a right, and having the potential to have a right. I know my own country's ground law better than someone from another country. The same should apply to you, I would think. Likewise, I know my own state's law better than a non-citizen does. Of course, I know both better than most of my fellow citizens, but our public education system ain't too hot these days...



When you arrive at conclusions that I have never, and will never, make, that have nothing to do with what I've stated, that seems to be a good indication that the discussion has reached the time at which it should be laid to rest.

(Legal terminology finds its home in the Constitution, certainly - but law is based IN the supreme law of any country. Ultra vires has standing under the Constitution, in the sense that it is one of limited powers, but, as you've echoed, the Constitution can be amended. Just as it can be amended to allow for secession, it can be amended to allow for anything.

The Articles Of Confederation allowed for Canada to join as a state. The colonists invaded Canada at one point early in the Revolution. The USA has annexed a fair bit of territory before - beyond the Constitution's jurisdiction or not!)


So what's your point? Article V doesn't allow for secession, or what? Just say yes or no. I say it does, and you have done nothing but patronize me, without ever offering any proof to the contrary.

Kinda hypocritical of us to call ourselves the "United States" if we just let people go off and do their own thing, eh?

Kinda hypocritical of us to call ourselves the "United States" if we just let people go off and do their own thing, eh?

If I put 50 legos together, they are united into a single structure, yes?

If I take one away, the others are still united into a single structure, yes?

Well - or at least my impression was - that is not what you asked. I was under the impression that you wished to discuss whether or not states could secede peaceably. And I said they could, provided that they had sufficient support in the rest of the union, hence your point was somewhat moot. I don't think that anyone has offered any evidence to the contrary. Perhaps I didn't fully grasp what you are getting at.

Actually the topic was "should" they be able to do so, as I wanted to try and avoid this turning into the umpteenth debate over whether the constitution allowed the states secession in 1860/1. ;)
I must say your having brought it up helped me in bringing some focus to what I wanted to ask. :D

Actually I probably would, but I would insist that there was some type of plebecite of all residents - note, residents not citizens - of that state, and that there was a large supermajority requirement for it to be carried.

And finally an answer I was looking for. ;)

Actually the topic was "should" they be able to do so, as I wanted to try and avoid this turning into the umpteenth debate over whether the constitution allowed the states secession in 1860/1. ;)
I must say your having brought it up helped me in bringing some focus to what I wanted to ask. :D



And finally an answer I was looking for. ;)

NP. Glad I could help.

So what's your point? Article V doesn't allow for secession, or what? Just say yes or no. I say it does, and you have done nothing but patronize me, without ever offering any proof to the contrary.

*sigh* How can anyone make clear to you what they wish to state when you can not do so yourself?

1: "Well that's not a very meaningful question, because they can."

2: "So, as I said before, provided that there is sufficient support in the rest of the states, they already have that right. So yes, there is already a process written into the constitution."

3: "So then right to petition for secesion exists. I never said there was a right to secession per se, only that there is a constitutional mechanism that allows it."

You provide how many different answers? And no, they are not different forms of the same thing, as 1 and 3 are exactly opposed to each other - 2 is somewhere in between.

Incidentally, regarding "Further, there is the "right" to petition for these changes under the wording of article V." - there is no "right to petition for amendments", not, at least, within Article V. That doesn't mean it's illegal - it just means that any petition to amend would fall under the I. and IX. Amendments (free speech, free assembly, rights not enumerated, etc). Picky, ain't it? ;) Law is picky. ConLaw is even pickier.

"The potentiality of a right is not the same thing as the possession of a right." I said above. "So, no, there is no "right" to secession in the Constitution." I also said above.

Do we make the jump from "no right in the Constitution" to include "no right in Article V"? I hope so... Because otherwise "Socrates is a man", "All men are mortal", "Therefore Socrates is immortal" is just as true... but who needs logic, right?

(That means that my saying "So, no, there is no "right" to secession in the Constitution." makes it very clear that I accept no "right" to secession in any part of the Constitution - whether Article IV or V. I stated this a couple pages back - which means you either failed to read before responding, or you failed to comprehend. I withhold judgement.)

Rehash of what I've said, ooh, fiveish times before?:

I can kill a man with my bare hands. The Constitution can be amended to make that legal (it's all about the due process of law, dude(tte)!). Because it can be amended does not make what is merely potential into a right.

(In other words, there is no secession in the Constitution, and yes, as you and I have both said, it can be amended - but contrary to what you've attempted to argue, that it can be amended does not magically make secession appear in the Constitution...)

Since there's nothing more to go on - regardless of whether you yet again conclude that I've concluded something that I have not in fact concluded and in fact would not conclude and in fact did not even discuss - I hope Daistallia finds the thread in general helpful. I'm off to bed.

Kinda hypocritical of us to call ourselves the "United States" if we just let people go off and do their own thing, eh?

The point in this unision is that it is a choice made by each state to be a part of the union. Personally, i think if a state wants to secede, it should have the right to do so. However, i dont think that there are many states which would be able to maintain their status as an independent nation for very long in the international arena. then again, politics and law arent my strong points, and probably wont ever be...

*sigh* How can anyone make clear to you what they wish to state when you can not do so yourself?

1: "Well that's not a very meaningful question, because they can."

2: "So, as I said before, provided that there is sufficient support in the rest of the states, they already have that right. So yes, there is already a process written into the constitution."

3: "So then right to petition for secesion exists. I never said there was a right to secession per se, only that there is a constitutional mechanism that allows it."

You provide how many different answers? And no, they are not different forms of the same thing, as 1 and 3 are exactly opposed to each other - 2 is somewhere in between.

Incidentally, regarding "Further, there is the "right" to petition for these changes under the wording of article V." - there is no "right to petition for amendments", not, at least, within Article V. That doesn't mean it's illegal - it just means that any petition to amend would fall under the I. and IX. Amendments (free speech, free assembly, rights not enumerated, etc). Picky, ain't it? ;) Law is picky. ConLaw is even pickier.

"The potentiality of a right is not the same thing as the possession of a right." I said above. "So, no, there is no "right" to secession in the Constitution." I also said above.

Do we make the jump from "no right in the Constitution" to include "no right in Article V"? I hope so... Because otherwise "Socrates is a man", "All men are mortal", "Therefore Socrates is immortal" is just as true... but who needs logic, right?

(That means that my saying "So, no, there is no "right" to secession in the Constitution." makes it very clear that I accept no "right" to secession in any part of the Constitution - whether Article IV or V. I stated this a couple pages back - which means you either failed to read before responding, or you failed to comprehend. I withhold judgement.)

Rehash of what I've said, ooh, fiveish times before?:

I can kill a man with my bare hands. The Constitution can be amended to make that legal (it's all about the due process of law, dude(tte)!). Because it can be amended does not make what is merely potential into a right.

(In other words, there is no secession in the Constitution, and yes, as you and I have both said, it can be amended - but contrary to what you've attempted to argue, that it can be amended does not magically make secession appear in the Constitution...)

Since there's nothing more to go on - regardless of whether you yet again conclude that I've concluded something that I have not in fact concluded and in fact would not conclude and in fact did not even discuss - I hope Daistallia finds the thread in general helpful. I'm off to bed.


Well they could try using english. I can only assume it is your second language.

Edit: you should also learn the difference between a state and a person. that would help you a lot.

I chose 'other' because I think that a state should be able to secede if the overwhelming majority of its citizens wanted to. Anything less than that would be very unfair to the people who lived in the state but wanted to remain citizens of the US.

This works out well in practice too, since an overwhelming majority is exactly what it would take to make secession possible. If basically all the inhabitants of a state wanted to secede, there's really nothing the other states could do to stop them short of civil war, and there's no way that Americans would would support without some good reason.

The other states might have the military might to easily overpower the seceeding state, but I doubt they would have the will to use that power. People just wouldn't feel right about going to war against other Americans.

If a large fraction of the state didn't want to secede, things would be different, since the war could then be fought to protect the property and rights of those who didn't want to secede.

If I put 50 legos together, they are united into a single structure, yes?

If I take one away, the others are still united into a single structure, yes?
Yes, but it isn't the same as the structure it was before the one piece was taken away.

I'm easily entertained, so I'm gonna pretend that the lego structure declares war on the single lego and adds it back into the single structure.

Texas v White (1869) defined the United States as indissoluble, and unless and until the supreme court overturns that ruling, or an amendment to the United States Constitution outlining the process of withdrawal or ejection from the Union is ratified, indissoluble it shall remain.

I personally do think states should hold the right to secede, under the condition that the secedent state(s) are self-sufficient (with respect to being able to keep the population from dying and being oppressed), and that the US minus aforementioned states remains self sufficient (same caveat), and the State overwhelmingly approves, and neighboring states approve by the means employed in each state, and the Federal government approves by simple majority (don't know if it should be each house or joint, nor if it should be able to be vetoed by the President). Ejection is a much more severe tactic, generally only to be employed when the state is entirely unsalvageable (Not like statewide riots unsalvageable, like 'radioactive glass' unsalvageable). <EDIT> And it would still be US nonstate territory, unless it was being used as bait for an invading force. </EDIT>

There's always the brute force method, of course, but these days it would take international support to pull off.

Kinda hypocritical of us to call ourselves the "United States" if we just let people go off and do their own thing, eh?

not really. maybe if it was called the "inescapable empire of doom" though

of course they should - provided it is really the wishes of a significant majority of the population of that state.


I pray every night that god inspires the people of texas, florida and utah to rebel so that we can kill them all.

Personally, I don't see why a state shouldn't be able to. I also don't see why it should have to be something as large as a state. I believe that a county, or a city, or a household should also have the right. Of course, ideally there would be a process about how goods/people would cross national lines.

The only exception to this would be if a state, county, etc. wanted to secede to commit human rights abuses. Disallowing succession is preferrable to having to go to war to prevent the human rights abuses from occurring.

I also don't see why it should have to be something as large as a state. I believe that a county, or a city, or a household should also have the right. Of course, ideally there would be a process about how goods/people would cross national lines.

indeed. states are an outdated and useless concept anway. bring on the bioregions and the megalopolises.

A state has the right to secede; after all, if the colonies seceded from Britain, what should stop a state(s) from leaving the US?

Yes I know it failed w/the Civil War, but philosophically and politically they do have the right to.

They certainly should, a weakened and fragmented USA would be in the interests of everyone in the world.

i think a state should have right to seperate if the majority of the people voted to do so in a referendum and tough cookies to the rest of the country. of course said state could be invaded by the rest of the country but that would look realy bad on a world stage if the us invaded a state that dmeocraticly wanted to seperate. that and canada would intervene and NOBODY wants to angle with canada :)

The fallacy of the argument is demonstrated by asking the simple question - "Why limit it to states?"

What if a county wants to secceed from a state? Maybe stay in the Union? What if a city wants to seceed from a state or county? Or a neighborhood from a city, county or state? Or a household...

get it?

This thread marks the first time I've found myself disagreeing with Eutresca. :)

Call me a romantic or idealist; but the basic concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" and that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" thing seems to suggest that forcing ~400 million people to operate the same way is pretty sad, if not oppressive. Yes, I know your States have significantly more authority than, say, Canadian provinces. But nevertheless, to an outsider, it seems that americans are increasingly polarised, with "red" vs "blue" despising each other with venomous hatred. Why not entertain means to at least decentralise more authority to the states and make the thought of secession a little less... attractive?

That said, forbidding secession seems, to me, to be akin to locking your forty-five year old son in his room to keep him from leaving home and starting his own, separate life. At what point do people (and nations) get to grow up and take responsibility for their own destiny? At what point do we value free association, rather than enforced association? At what point in the relationship do you realise that she doesn't really love you anymore and just let her go?

Free Tibet! Free Quebec! and free... well, whoever's itchin' to seceed in the USA!

Any US state should be able to secede within the following conditions:
- a majority of that state want it
- it is not too impractically small (IE, no abkhazias or South Ossetias)
- the new State is not ruled by an armed minority

Only Texas ;)

I'm amazed that such a moot point has brought about such a heated discussion, myself.

Sure, I guess states should have the right to secede, and levy their own taxes.

Just don't expect all the benefits of being a single country... they would lose pretty much all national funding, billions in tax revenue would be lost in the switchover. Some crank would probably try to start a civil war. You'd have to have border crossings and guard stations. The remaining union would probably charge a mint for interstates and all other infrastructure built by federal government before the secession.

But sure, states should have the right to secede. It's just not a good idea.

Sure, I guess states should have the right to secede, and levy their own taxes.

Just don't expect all the benefits of being a single country... they would lose pretty much all national funding, billions in tax revenue would be lost in the switchover. Some crank would probably try to start a civil war. You'd have to have border crossings and guard stations. The remaining union would probably charge a mint for interstates and all other infrastructure built by federal government before the secession.

But sure, states should have the right to secede. It's just not a good idea.

So maybe a state has an internal referendum or something, decides that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and votes to secede. I'm curious as to the next question:

Given that the "remaining union" will in all likelihood do -anything- to retain the seceeding state, is the resulting war moral? Or to put it more succinctly, if Utah seceeds (to pick a name out of a hat), is it right for the USA to attack them to force them to stay in the union? What if Utah doesn't "fire the first shot" but merely defends their state from "invaders"?

Yeah, I know this sort of happened already, but I'm curious how y'all feel if it were to happen today.

I don't think it would be moral to attack your countrymen over economic reasons. For this reason I believe the Civil War was ill advised. The only good thing that came from the Civil War was the Emancipation Proclamation, which validated the abolitionist's shadow movement and helped to end slavery.

The half million Americans who died in the Civil War could just as easily have been part of a peaceful solution. Of course, I speak in retrospect, I wasn't there at the time. Maybe losing a war really was what was needed to end slavery in the South.

Since the number one priority for any government is to ensure its own existence, no constitution of any kind can allow for secession.

Well they could try using english. I can only assume it is your second language.

Edit: you should also learn the difference between a state and a person. that would help you a lot.

You've amply demonstrated your inability to understand English. More so, you've amply demonstrated you inability to make use of logic - and quite obviously mastered the art of non sequiters (a non sequiter - literally "it does not follow" - is when, say, one fails to address a point, say, by resorting to personal attacks. Hmm...).

(Analogies? Who needs 'em! Yes, analogies are a part of the English language. Understanding how they work would indeed help a lot. Please look into it.)

M'am, it's been a "pleasure". Let's not despoil the sweet savoriness of the moment by repeating this again too soon.

why would someone want to secede from this most hated nation in the world? we are an economic powerhouse with great freedoms and a good economy

sorry for the double post but if someone wants to secede from the US instead of stirring up trouble and making more people unhappy why not jsut move to a "better" country? like maybe mexico or canadia or how bout china

The fallacy of the argument is demonstrated by asking the simple question - "Why limit it to states?"

What if a county wants to secceed from a state? Maybe stay in the Union? What if a city wants to seceed from a state or county? Or a neighborhood from a city, county or state? Or a household...

get it?

how could a household be its own nation? nobody in their right mind would think that a household could be a nation. they would have to start their own hospitals, grocers, tech labs, etc, etc.

The fallacy of the argument is demonstrated by asking the simple question - "Why limit it to states?"

What if a county wants to secceed from a state? Maybe stay in the Union? What if a city wants to seceed from a state or county? Or a neighborhood from a city, county or state? Or a household...

get it?


i fail to see how that demonstrates anything fallacious. even going by the argument that claims that "the civil war settled this", then the one thing we know with absolute certainty is that parts of a state are allowed to break off from the rest of it.

besides, what's wrong with free association?

how could a household be its own nation? nobody in their right mind would think that a household could be a nation. they would have to start their own hospitals, grocers, tech labs, etc, etc.

or they could enter into agreements with the surrounding area to allow them continued access.

or we could be talking about neo-nazi nutjobs with 300 acres of land in montana - in which case, letting them secede and then installing a border patrol to keep them there seems like a rather good idea.

how could a household be its own nation? nobody in their right mind would think that a household could be a nation. they would have to start their own hospitals, grocers, tech labs, etc, etc.
"I go get MY groceries from the other side of the border!"

The civil war (supposedly*) put an end to the question of the states actually having a right to secede.

But my question is should they be able to and why or why not?

* Yes some will argue that point, but lets try and stick to the question of should the right exist at all.

I'm STILL waiting for the entire south to secede.....sigh.....oh why couldn't we have just lost the damn civil war...then Texas would be nothing but a bad backwater memory that us blue-staters looked back upon with disgust for it's ever having existed...and quaint fondness for it's eventual disappearance back into the murky shadow-world from whence it came. :D

Yes, states should have the right to secede. The vast majority of the Founding Fathers felt the same way. Read The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo and check out his footnotes for more details.

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 inalienable 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 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 shown, 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.

If the state feels the government has been abusive enough it has the right to secede. That's the principle the American colonists revolted on.

This may come as no surprise to most people, but when the South seceded from the Union, they officially did so in the exact same room of the exact same building in which they had joined the Union a century earlier. They were clearly trying to imply that if they had the power to join the US, they also had the power to leave it. A lot of states were scared of the fact that joining the US could be an irreversible procedure, and the Confederacy wisely capitalised on this fear to great success. Lincoln finally had to suspend the writ of habeus corpus in Maryland to keep the Capitol from being completely encircled by seceding states.

The reason for secession was that the South considered an assault on the institution of slavery an attack on "Southern rights," and on the economic foundation of the primarily agrarian South which depended on slave labor.

WRONG! You must be taking Revisionist History 102. :headbang: The primary cause of the war was States Rights, but that was another post.

If the state feels the government has been abusive enough it has the right to secede. That's the principle the American colonists revolted on.

That argument still requires a 5-million-participant shooting match.

WRONG! You must be taking Revisionist History 102. :headbang: The primary cause of the war was States Rights, but that was another post.

Muh. What state right were they worried enough to attack Federal troops about, if not the 'right' to own other people?

"I go get MY groceries from the other side of the border!"

not much different than walmart getting them from the other side of the planet, really.

If I put 50 legos together, they are united into a single structure, yes?

If I take one away, the others are still united into a single structure, yes?

Depends on how the 50 are constructed.

how could a household be its own nation? nobody in their right mind would think that a household could be a nation. they would have to start their own hospitals, grocers, tech labs, etc, etc.


There are quite a few sucessful micronations and microstates, including over 40 with populations less than 100,000.

Here are two that fit the household model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutt_River_Province
http://www.sealandgov.com/

Secession should be a valid legal move...

Thus I agree that states should be able to seceed, if it be a decision by the representative population of the state. (Such occured in Virginia, when the House of Delegates and Senate submitted the Ordinance of Secession, basically a de-ratification of the US Constitution, for general vote to the populace of the Commonwealth; where, then the decision was made by the majority of the populace to remove ratification of the US Constitution, and place all sovereign powers back into the hands of the Commonwealth's governance in Richmond, and make the Constitution of Virginia the supreme law of the Commonwealth... Which means, not much changed, since the US Constitution was but an inferior copy of the Virginia Constitution and Bill of Rights...)...

If you insist the "Colonies" had the right to seceed from Great Britain in 1776; and that, then later, had the right to seceed from the Articles of Confederation (in 1788)... Then it stands to reason they have the right to seceed from the US Constitution (and thus the U.S.)...

If you hold that secession is not valid from union.... The the US Constitution is invalid, and we should still be under the Articles of Confederation (1777-1788)... Or worse, that the Declaration of Independence is still invalid, and we should still be under British Rule....

WRONG! You must be taking Revisionist History 102. *snip* The primary cause of the war was States Rights, but that was another post.

Wrong.

That was an another thread. And it was thoroughly documented that the primary reason for secession was the preservation of slavery.

If you want to debate this, start a new thread. But read this (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) first.

Your version of history is the one that is revisionist.

Absofuckinlutely.

The civil war (supposedly*) put an end to the question of the states actually having a right to secede.

But my question is should they be able to and why or why not?

* Yes some will argue that point, but lets try and stick to the question of should the right exist at all.
yes, please! let the Bible Belt secede! then we can stop supporting them with Blue-state tax dollars!

The civil war (supposedly*) put an end to the question of the states actually having a right to secede.

But my question is should they be able to and why or why not?

* Yes some will argue that point, but lets try and stick to the question of should the right exist at all.


Good question. I say yes, but only with consent of most of the union, so the state can only leave if most states are convinced somethings wrong, not just if they're pissed.

You've amply demonstrated your inability to understand English. More so, you've amply demonstrated you inability to make use of logic - and quite obviously mastered the art of non sequiters (a non sequiter - literally "it does not follow" - is when, say, one fails to address a point, say, by resorting to personal attacks. Hmm...).

(Analogies? Who needs 'em! Yes, analogies are a part of the English language. Understanding how they work would indeed help a lot. Please look into it.)

M'am, it's been a "pleasure". Let's not despoil the sweet savoriness of the moment by repeating this again too soon.

Your patronizing attitude towards Lacadaemon is extremely amusing considering how very wrong you are. Particularly as you continued after your premise had been disproven by another poster.

(I have a proprietary claim to insults and condescension towards Lacadaemon.)

Can they? No one knows! The Constitution is silent on the matter, which is why it's still a divisive question (Incidentally, New England, possibly into the Mid Atlantic, experienced cries for secession in the early and mid 1800s)
*snip*

Gee. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to think they know. They think the Constitution says "no."

As someone else pointed out earlier, this question was decided in, at least, Texas v. White (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/74/700.html ), 74 US 700, 724-725 (1869):

It is needless to discuss, at length, the question whether the right of a State to withdraw from the Union for any cause, regarded by herself as sufficient, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null.

You also may wish to consider Article IV of the Constitution -- particularly Section 2, Clause 1; Section 3, Clause 1, and Section 4.

Law is picky. ConLaw is even pickier.

Yes. It certainly is. And it can bite.

Yes. It certainly is. And it can bite you in the ass.

As I'm fond of telling some, it only bites you in the ass if you open your mouth when your lawyer isn't present.

I say Florida has the right to succeed and should. I mean, come on, it looks like a PENIS.

If you want to debate this, start a new thread. But read this (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html) first.


LOL :D

Yeah I read it and slavery was mentioned 38 (!!!) times in those four state secession docs. That's 9.5 times per state.

Freedom was mentioned once.

Your patronizing attitude towards Lacadaemon is extremely amusing considering how very wrong you are. Particularly as you continued after your premise had been disproven by another poster.


That premise being? :) That poster being? I'm rather amused - it was Lacadaemon's premise that was disproven by her own words (not to mention the Constitution itself, myself and another poster or two directly, and a Supreme Court ruling - picky picky).

If you can provide a premise that I was arguing, much more so one that I was both arguing and had been "disproven" by anyone (My first post or two were general - however, my successive posts were direct responses to Lacadaemon, and, apart from some amusing commentary by colleagues such as Eutrusca, are to my knowledge hardly disproofs of anything. Might I be wrong? Certainly. But I certainly don't read every last single message anyone might post, and at the very least, I'll stay on target - and just as important, I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong, or that I am wrong. Prove it, and I will. Fail to prove it, and I trust you'll refrain from such targeted yet pointless asides as this. I mean, really - I try to stay on topic with Lacadaemon, who constantly puts words in my mouth and changes the topic to something neither I nor she had mentioned before, and I find myself forced to ignore drivel such as this or to meet on off topic grounds to set matters straight. Ahh, free speech.).

Friend, I patronize when I am patronized - I am, unfortunately, not wholly beneficient. As they say, I'm only human. ;) That, and particularly as the Constitution itself disproved her premise, it is rather odd that I should in turn be patronized by you for patronizing her for patronizing me. Whee!

Gee. The U.S. Supreme Court seems to think they know. They think the Constitution says "no."

"Seems to think". They also seemed to think that the 14th Amendment was as "separate and equal" was there. Too bad they turned out wrong. This country has had one test case, as I have noted, and that test case says "no", as I also noted. This country, meanwhile, had numerous test cases regarding civil rights, and the Supreme Court changed its answer... oh, I'll let you count the number of times (good luck). I am content to accept a ruling on a matter that has since been decided multiple times to be the same answer (the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of civil rights legislation repeatedly since the 50's, while previously it was happy to allow legislatures to oppress sections of their population). I am not content to accept a single ruling on a moot point that had already been decided by force - unless, of course, that's what passes for legality.

For that matter, I do not just "think" but insist that the Constitution says "no". That was clear from my first post on the matter. Unfortunately, being clear that I thought the Constitution did not allow it was not enough for said earlier referenced "patronized" poster, who needed to ask three or more times whether that was indeed the case. Do we see the problem whence this matter has arisen? To explain something once is great - twice, sure, misunderstandings occur. To be required or requested to explain something three or four or more times - when, to use your own wording, Lacadaemon's premise had been disproven not just by her own self-contradictory statements but by myself and a minimum of one or two other posters, well, if you can see the problem, I should not be needing to reply.

Yes. It certainly is. And it can bite you in the ass.

Pickiness - yes. As in picky in that one Supreme Court ruling on a moot matter does not answer anything. Very technically, the Supreme Court (at least in modern times) outright refuses to rule on moot matters. Considering, anyway, that I had stated my own belief that the Constitution did not allow for secession - and, indeed, to Miss Lacadaemon, had pointed out, that Article IV allowed only for states to join (or to be divided), but not to secede, use the very same reasoning as the SCOTUS did in the 1869 ruling, well, now, that wouldn't matter, would it, because Lacadaemon is a defenseless person who can't possibly protect her views - expressed poorly and in diversely contradictory forms - from me.

Oh - and I was never asked about the Supreme Court. So, unless you insist that a very brief and cursory mention of the matter that by no means meant to authoritatively answer the question once and for all for all of humanity, I've got to be picky here in that you're quite off base. Has I been asked about the Supreme Court's opinion, I could have answered, with or without further research. But, my friend, Lacadaemon completely ignored the Supreme Court, completely ignored the words of the Constitution, and her own words, and insisted on asking questions to which I had already given answers and was forced to condescend to reiterate as though to a child. Picky? It can... how did you say it?

Picky picky picky. Not picky enough, my friend.

great freedoms and a good economy
But, alas, those terms are relative.