NationStates Jolt Archive

That's just the problem.

Americans are guaranteed their constitutional rights regardless of what local majorities dictate.

Say michigan votes 70/30 to secede, draw up a new constitution, &c.

That 30% is still entitled to 100% of its US constitutional rights, regardless of what the rest of the people think or say.

Would then the 30% not have the right to move to another part of the US, now that they are Americans in a foreign country? The same principle applies in the event that a state joined the union after all. I doubt there was 100% approval in every instance, and those who disagreed had to abide by the decision or leave.

Out of curiosity, which constitutional rights would be in violation in this instance? From what I can tell the only thing that ever really settled the issue of secession in the US was war.

Would then the 30% not have the right to move to another part of the US, now that they are Americans in a foreign country? The same principle applies in the event that a state joined the union after all. I doubt there was 100% approval in every instance, and those who disagreed had to abide by the decision or leave.

Out of curiosity, which constitutional rights would be in violation in this instance? From what I can tell the only thing that ever really settled the issue of secession in the US was war.


This is exactly where it runs into constitutional problems.

The constitution guarantees that rights, such as the right to choose where you live, are unalienable except by due process of law.

Since secession is not due process, forcing americans to move by stealing land to make a "foreign country" is a serious attack.

War was the only way to settle the question - and it was completely necessary. Permitting secession would be the quick destruction of the US. It is in our most vital national interest not to allow it.

due process

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You think a lot of ridiculous things. Anarchism, &c. &c.

What of it?

What of it?

mainly that your argument is crap and has been completely demolished, yet you keep repeating it, hoping that this time we might not notice.

mainly that your argument is crap and has been completely demolished, yet you keep repeating it, hoping that this time we might not notice.


By whom? Where?

"Wahhhhhhh ur being totilly unreasonable ur saying outragis things" is not an argument.

"I dont think 'due process' means what you do" is not an argument.


What would posess anyone to believe that a state declaring secession was due process for the revocation of the rights of its inhabitants? Is there any precedent to this? Is there any precedent which might indicate that secession is legal under the US constitution?


Lot of noise about this but nothing substantial, no precedent found, no "demolishing."

"Get a grip" &c.

fuck Johny reb
:upyours:

What would posess anyone to believe that a state declaring secession was due process for the revocation of the rights of its inhabitants?

once again, your question makes no sense, as there is no revocation of rights anywhere in this discussion.

stop throwing around terms like 'due process' and 'revocation of rights' because you are apparently using them to mean something completely different from normal usage.

Is there any precedent which might indicate that secession is legal under the US constitution?

who the fuck cares? the constitution doesn't govern nations outside of it, such as a geographic region thats people have declared independence. even if the constitution said "no one shall ever leave this union, ever", it wouldn't matter in the slightest. the right of a people to govern itself is inalienable.

i think i've figured out ng's problem - well not the part where he would favor bombing people to force them to remain in the country, but that part is probably beyond hope.

he thinks there is some sort of right for an american citizen to find that wherever they happen to live, it will be located in the united states (which some of the ex-pats on this forum might find slightly amusing).

additionally, he thinks that people who happened to live in a newly independent area would automatically lose their citizenship, though this could only be based on ignorance of the relevant rules regarding u.s. citizenship.

he also thinks that u.s. citizens living outside the country are not allowed to vote in u.s. elections, which is, of course, wrong.

and somewhere there was some notion that people who didn't want to live in the new independent country would have their property siezed and be chased out by packs of rabid dogs and/or children.

once again, your question makes no sense, as there is no revocation of rights anywhere in this discussion.

stop throwing around terms like 'due process' and 'revocation of rights' because you are apparently using them to mean something completely different from normal usage.



who the fuck cares? the constitution doesn't govern nations outside of it, such as a geographic region thats people have declared independence. even if the constitution said "no one shall ever leave this union, ever", it wouldn't matter in the slightest. the right of a people to govern itself is inalienable.

If you still dont understand what I mean by due process and the rights of the constitution, I'm not going to explain it the Nth time. Other people haven't had trouble grasping the idea.

The right of a people to govern itself is not inalienable. Even the founders caveat read "when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one group of people..."

"Hey, lets go start our own new country" is not a legitimate "necessity" for rebelling against your country and annexing its territory.

Unless government becomes so bad that its overthrow is necessary for basic liberty, there is no legitimate excuse to overthrow it.

i think i've figured out ng's problem - well not the part where he would favor bombing people to force them to remain in the country, but that part is probably beyond hope.

he thinks there is some sort of right for an american citizen to find that wherever they happen to live, it will be located in the united states (which some of the ex-pats on this forum might find slightly amusing).

additionally, he thinks that people who happened to live in a newly independent area would automatically lose their citizenship, though this could only be based on ignorance of the relevant rules regarding u.s. citizenship.

he also thinks that u.s. citizens living outside the country are not allowed to vote in u.s. elections, which is, of course, wrong.

and somewhere there was some notion that people who didn't want to live in the new independent country would have their property siezed and be chased out by packs of rabid dogs and/or children.


Wrong and misapprehended on every count.

A) An american living in the US cannot have any of his rights abriged without due process of law. I imagine we're all in agreement on this fact - it is written into the 5th amendment.

B) The fact that some local majority had decided to declare a parcel of land "a new and foreign country" is not sufficient grounds to throw out a single constitutional guarantee, or guarantee emanating from the constitution (such as opportunity for binding SCOTUS judicial review of law cases). Not even 99% of michigan's population has the right to tell that remaining one percent that "michigan isnt part of the US anymore, your home is not part of the US, you no longer live under the government set out in the US constitution."

C) Citizenship is not the issue - constitutional guarantees are. Unless the noveau regime on the annexed land adopted the US constitution verbatim (and therefore removed any significance from its "secession," some constitutional guarantees would by definition be revoked.

D) Because secession isnt due process under the constitution, this significantly violates the 5th amendment.


If you misunderstand or disagree with anything above, you'll need to address questions or disagreements directly.

Organization by letter is for your convenience.

Enough vague ad hominem and obtuse misapprehensions.

i think i've figured out ng's problem - well not the part where he would favor bombing people to force them to remain in the country, but that part is probably beyond hope.

he thinks there is some sort of right for an american citizen to find that wherever they happen to live, it will be located in the united states (which some of the ex-pats on this forum might find slightly amusing).

additionally, he thinks that people who happened to live in a newly independent area would automatically lose their citizenship, though this could only be based on ignorance of the relevant rules regarding u.s. citizenship.

he also thinks that u.s. citizens living outside the country are not allowed to vote in u.s. elections, which is, of course, wrong.

and somewhere there was some notion that people who didn't want to live in the new independent country would have their property siezed and be chased out by packs of rabid dogs and/or children.


Wrong and misapprehended on every count.

A) An american living in the US cannot have any of his rights abriged without due process of law. I imagine we're all in agreement on this fact - it is written into the 5th amendment.

B) The fact that some local majority had decided to declare a parcel of land "a new and foreign country" is not sufficient grounds to throw out a single constitutional guarantee, or guarantee emanating from the constitution (such as opportunity for binding SCOTUS judicial review of law cases). Not even 99% of michigan's population has the right to tell that remaining one percent that "michigan isnt part of the US anymore, your home is not part of the US, you no longer live under the government set out in the US constitution."

C) Citizenship is not the issue - constitutional guarantees are. Unless the noveau regime on the annexed land adopted the US constitution verbatim (and therefore removed any significance from its "secession," some constitutional guarantees would by definition be revoked.

D) Because secession isnt due process under the constitution, this significantly violates the 5th amendment.


If you misunderstand or disagree with anything above, you'll need to address questions or disagreements directly.

Organization by letter is for your convenience.

Enough vague ad hominem and obtuse misapprehensions.

i think i've figured out ng's problem - well not the part where he would favor bombing people to force them to remain in the country, but that part is probably beyond hope.

he thinks there is some sort of right for an american citizen to find that wherever they happen to live, it will be located in the united states (which some of the ex-pats on this forum might find slightly amusing).

additionally, he thinks that people who happened to live in a newly independent area would automatically lose their citizenship, though this could only be based on ignorance of the relevant rules regarding u.s. citizenship.

he also thinks that u.s. citizens living outside the country are not allowed to vote in u.s. elections, which is, of course, wrong.

and somewhere there was some notion that people who didn't want to live in the new independent country would have their property siezed and be chased out by packs of rabid dogs and/or children.


Wrong and misapprehended on every count.

A) An american living in the US cannot have any of his rights abriged without due process of law. I imagine we're all in agreement on this fact - it is written into the 5th amendment.

B) The fact that some local majority had decided to declare a parcel of land "a new and foreign country" is not sufficient grounds to throw out a single constitutional guarantee, or guarantee emanating from the constitution (such as opportunity for binding SCOTUS judicial review of law cases). Not even 99% of michigan's population has the right to tell that remaining one percent that "michigan isnt part of the US anymore, your home is not part of the US, you no longer live under the government set out in the US constitution."

C) Citizenship is not the issue - constitutional guarantees are. Unless the noveau regime on the annexed land adopted the US constitution verbatim (and therefore removed any significance from its "secession," some constitutional guarantees would by definition be revoked.

D) Because secession isnt due process under the constitution, this significantly violates the 5th amendment.


If you misunderstand or disagree with anything above, you'll need to address questions or disagreements directly.

Organization by letter is for your convenience.

Enough vague ad hominem and obtuse misapprehensions.

The right of a people to govern itself is not inalienable

yes it is. if we are going to treat anything as an inalienable right, self government must be a foundational one. it is the principle from which all political liberty springs.

Unless government becomes so bad that its overthrow is necessary for basic liberty, there is no legitimate excuse to overthrow it.

and since self government is basic liberty, it all works out nicely.

(and once you convince the former government to start launching cruise missiles, the necessity of the 'overthrow' should be clear even to you - which poses an interesting paradox)

The fact that some local majority had decided to declare a parcel of land "a new and foreign country" is not sufficient grounds to throw out a single constitutional guarantee, or guarantee emanating from the constitution (such as opportunity for binding SCOTUS judicial review of law cases). Not even 99% of michigan's population has the right to tell that remaining one percent that "michigan isnt part of the US anymore, your home is not part of the US, you no longer live under the government set out in the US constitution."

sure it is. the right to self government trumps any mere constitution. it is the foundation upon which the constitution was built in the first place, and it is the wrecking ball which can bring it down.

constitutions exist because of the exercise of self government. should a constitution be found to not be working as those living under it wish, then they have an absolute right to abolish it. as a practical matter, this right should probably not be exercised recklessly, but in terms of principle it is absolute.

The right of a people to govern itself is not inalienable. yes it is. if we are going to treat anything as an inalienable right, self government must be a foundational one. it is the principle from which all political liberty springs.

This shouldn't even be questionable. If one's argument is to uphold the constitution, the founding principle of the constitution shouldn't be overlooked.

The most convincing argument that I've seen on NG's part thus far, was that the signing of the constitution by the various states was entered into willingly, and counts as a legal and binding contract. Thus, if a state didn't bother to read the fine print, or allow an escape clause into the constitution, well, too bad.

A unilateral secession would obviously not be fair, or 'legal'. However, I disagree in principle that if a state or group of states had a desire to leave the union that the 'original government' wouldn't have an obligation to negotiate in faith with the seceding states.

NG's point of view seems to be that perpetuating the federal state is of utmost importance; that due to political-strategic concerns, the dismantling of the federal state would be detrimental to all Americans and thus must be avoided at all costs.

One wonders how civil war wouldn't be worse.

Divorce isn't international politics and if it was then a lot of people would be screwed over. What is right is what has the least economic cost. I really don't care about what Hawaiians want if it starts causing economic problems for me, I want the problem fixed. Now of course, I would argue that we should try to avoid situations where secession is something desired, however, I do not believe in the right to secession. I believe that it may be good at times however, it exists about as much as the right to war in my mind.

I don't really care about Canadian law, I do not care who thinks Quebec has the right to secede. Canada can have its own laws governing secession but considering laws against treason which secession can often be considered a part of I do not believe that secession is a right.

The US may or may not have been clear enough in the constitution but considering the fact that we have put down rebellions in the past I think that it can be inferred from precedent going back to the whiskey rebellion that we do not accept the right to secede.

I know I'm backpedaling a bit, but I was re-reading the thread and wanted to go over this comment; "What is right is what has the least economic cost."

By that argument, wouldn't that make the Confederacy 'in the right', since the abolition of slavery would come at a great economic cost to them? And Lincoln in the wrong since there was an obvious economic cost to civil war? Wouldn't it have been cheaper for all involved not to fight the war in the first place?

A) An american living in the US cannot have any of his rights abriged without due process of law. I imagine we're all in agreement on this fact - it is written into the 5th amendment.

Quite right. The 14th Amendment covers this as well.


B) The fact that some local majority had decided to declare a parcel of land "a new and foreign country" is not sufficient grounds to throw out a single constitutional guarantee, or guarantee emanating from the constitution (such as opportunity for binding SCOTUS judicial review of law cases). Not even 99% of michigan's population has the right to tell that remaining one percent that "michigan isnt part of the US anymore, your home is not part of the US, you no longer live under the government set out in the US constitution."

The US Constitution is not some sort of sacred document handed down from on high. If 99% of the people in a state don't want to live under the government set out in the US Constitution, what right does 1% have to tell them that they have to? Having a binding SCOTUS judicial review is not a natural right. Having a judiciary is a very good idea, but it's not an inalienable right. Anyway, any seceding state in the US would almost certainly maintain a very similar form of government to the ones they have now, all of which have a high court to fulfill such a function.

C) Citizenship is not the issue - constitutional guarantees are. Unless the noveau regime on the annexed land adopted the US constitution verbatim (and therefore removed any significance from its "secession," some constitutional guarantees would by definition be revoked.

Again, if the majority of the population in a state or region want different constitutional guarantees, they have the inherent right to have them. And you say "annexed land" as though the land would be taken from the United States. Using the Michigan example, the vast majority of the land within the state of Michigan are owned by either private citizens or the state. Only a small percentage of the land is actually owned by the United States. Of course, there would have to be negotiations as to how to handle any possible transfer of these properties.

D) Because secession isnt due process under the constitution, this significantly violates the 5th amendment.

You'll have to explain this one to me. From what I can gather from the wisdom of the Internet due process is ensuring that any governmental action is fair and goes through the proper procedure. I fail to see how a clear and simple question on a referedum, coupled with actions by the seceding state to ensure a way out for those who wanted out, coupled with recompensation for any property left behind could violate due process.

Quite right. The 14th Amendment covers this as well.




The US Constitution is not some sort of sacred document handed down from on high. If 99% of the people in a state don't want to live under the government set out in the US Constitution, what right does 1% have to tell them that they have to? Having a binding SCOTUS judicial review is not a natural right. Having a judiciary is a very good idea, but it's not an inalienable right. Anyway, any seceding state in the US would almost certainly maintain a very similar form of government to the ones they have now, all of which have a high court to fulfill such a function.



Again, if the majority of the population in a state or region want different constitutional guarantees, they have the inherent right to have them. And you say "annexed land" as though the land would be taken from the United States. Using the Michigan example, the vast majority of the land within the state of Michigan are owned by either private citizens or the state. Only a small percentage of the land is actually owned by the United States. Of course, there would have to be negotiations as to how to handle any possible transfer of these properties.



You'll have to explain this one to me. From what I can gather from the wisdom of the Internet due process is ensuring that any governmental action is fair and goes through the proper procedure. I fail to see how a clear and simple question on a referendum, coupled with actions by the seceding state to ensure a way out for those who wanted out, coupled with recompensation for any property left behind could violate due process.

A) The constitution is as close to an "American bible" as you can get. It is the backbone of the country, the supreme law. What i'm arguing for is the rule of law, not the rule of vaguely dissatisfied revolting minority.

B) The majority of a state does not have a right to different constitutional guarantees. They may alter their state constitution to provide them extra rights under state law, but they can never diminish the rights of their neighbors by voting.


If the russians were to land paratroopers in michigan tomorrow, would they be invading michigan or the US?

C) A local majority is not entitled to tell any american "don't like it? leave," or "congratulations, your town is no longer part of the US." Deprivation of rights can only be accomplished by following due process - which is much as you laid it out.

The reason secession is not due process is that the rule of law is destroyed when every disgruntled group is empowered to overthrow any law it dislikes.

The rule of law - the backbone of stable, civil society - is at its basic level the guarantee that everyone follows the laws, whether they like it or not, whether it is incidentally in their interest or not. The fundamental laws must be agreed upon by a national majority, and the rest by local majorities such that they do not conflict with the fundamentals.

This shouldn't even be questionable. If one's argument is to uphold the constitution, the founding principle of the constitution shouldn't be overlooked.

we appear to be encountering a case of "one state, one vote, once"

This shouldn't even be questionable. If one's argument is to uphold the constitution, the founding principle of the constitution shouldn't be overlooked.


The declaration of independance speaks of necessity for overthrowing a government. It contains a list of grievances against England.

If a government is opressive, and fundamental liberties are abridged by its continuance in power, then overthrow is justified.

If it is not opressive, overthrow is not justified.

Dont you people read Locke in school anymore?

Additionally, the enormous tort done by a revolting few to the remaining many must be taken into consideration in any petty group's bid to rebel.

The declaration of independance speaks of necessity for overthrowing a government. It contains a list of grievances against England.

If a government is opressive, and fundamental liberties are abridged by its continuance in power, then overthrow is justified.

If it is not opressive, overthrow is not justified.

Dont you people read Locke in school anymore?

Additionally, the enormous tort done by a revolting few to the remaining many must be taken into consideration in any petty group's bid to rebel.

Who defines the necessity? The colonies that remained in British posession after 1776 managed just fine. It wasn't until 1867 that Confederation happened in Canada, but it wasn't like the place was a hallmark for oppression. (Which may explain why they don't teach much about Locke in Canadian public schools; I'm not coming from an education system that glorifies revolution ;) ).

Rebellion itself isn't always necessary, however if the governing body refuses to even negotiate the possibility, what's left? Submit or rebel...

Rebellion itself isn't always necessary, however if the governing body refuses to even negotiate the possibility, what's left? Submit or rebel...

free state: "we've declared independence"

old rulers: "you can't, you don't have a legitimate justification - we aren't oppressing you"

free state: "well, too bad, we're independent now"

old rulers: "we'll bomb you into submission"

free state: "well now that we have a legitimate justification by even your standards, we've declared our independence..."

free state: "we've declared independence"

old rulers: "you can't, you don't have a legitimate justification - we aren't oppressing you"

free state: "well, too bad, we're independent now"

old rulers: "we'll bomb you into submission"

free state: "well now that we have a legitimate justification by even your standards, we've declared our independence..."


People who revolt against a country by "seceding" without just cause cannot claim the appropriate response by that county is post facto justification.

This is like attacking and killing someone and then claiming it was self defense "because he fought back."

Ludicrous.

A) The constitution is as close to an "American bible" as you can get. It is the backbone of the country, the supreme law. What i'm arguing for is the rule of law, not the rule of vaguely dissatisfied revolting minority.[\QUOTE]

Here's where we're thinking of different things. Could you imagine getting a majority of people in any state to vote for anything if they didn't think it was extremely important? If a majority of voters in a state vote in favor of secession, chances are they aren't just vaguely dissatisfied. The idea is that all other routes have already been taken, including negotiations with the former central government, to no avail. No one is saying "Well, we don't like the new FDA standards on chewing gum, so we'll secede" is even remotely possible.


[QUOTE=New Granada]]B) The majority of a state does not have a right to different constitutional guarantees. They may alter their state constitution to provide them extra rights under state law, but they can never diminish the rights of their neighbors by voting.

This doesn't make any sense. You seem to expect unanimity, which is, of course, impossible. Also, where are you getting this "diminishing rights" thing? The mere structure of the government of the United States is not a natural right.


If the russians were to land paratroopers in michigan tomorrow, would they be invading michigan or the US?

Both. Since Michigan is a member of the United States invading Michigan = invading the United States. This doesn't make the land in Michigan the property of the United States government.

C) A local majority is not entitled to tell any american "don't like it? leave," or "congratulations, your town is no longer part of the US." Deprivation of rights can only be accomplished by following due process - which is much as you laid it out.

Again, with the "deprivation of rights" thing.

The reason secession is not due process is that the rule of law is destroyed when every disgruntled group is empowered to overthrow any law it dislikes.

Not "every disgruntled group" can secede. For a group to secede they would have to be able to organize the citizens of a geographic area to hold a convention or vote or something along those lines to secede, which is certainly not something that "any disgruntled group" can do.

The rule of law - the backbone of stable, civil society - is at its basic level the guarantee that everyone follows the laws, whether they like it or not, whether it is incidentally in their interest or not. The fundamental laws must be agreed upon by a national majority, and the rest by local majorities such that they do not conflict with the fundamentals.

So you're saying that if a certain group is getting completely screwed by national policies, and the central government refuses to do anything about it, they have no right to change it for themselves? You seem to think that there is some sort of mystical "rightness" about the current nation-states of the world, when there is no such thing. No nation exists for the sole purpose of existing, they exist to serve their citizens. And when a group decides they want a different government to serve them, they should have every right to do that.

Additionally, the enormous tort done by a revolting few to the remaining many must be taken into consideration in any petty group's bid to rebel.

Loaded language aside, you are correct. This is why negotiations would have to take place to decide the "how's" of a secession.

People who revolt against a country by "seceding" without just cause cannot claim the appropriate response by that county is post facto justification.

hah, bomb the bastards as an 'appropriate response'

hilarious and loony all at the same time.

The declaration of independance speaks of necessity for overthrowing a government. It contains a list of grievances against England.

If a government is opressive, and fundamental liberties are abridged by its continuance in power, then overthrow is justified.

If it is not opressive, overthrow is not justified.

Dont you people read Locke in school anymore?

Additionally, the enormous tort done by a revolting few to the remaining many must be taken into consideration in any petty group's bid to rebel.

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.

Consent to governance was key to the founding fathers, as they showed with the declaration of independence. Whenever a government loses the consent of the governed, it loses its power, and the people have the right to institute new government.

I would have supported the souths cause because The 'North' was trying to destroy the Souths livelyhood maybe not intentionally but by their aims for the country.
In the end the South was destroyed economically.
The North held all the Industry and the South was Agricultural taking away the Souths cheapest form of labour would have been and was devastating.

I would have supported the souths cause because The 'North' was trying to destroy the Souths livelyhood maybe not intentionally but by their aims for the country.
In the end the South was destroyed economically.
The North held all the Industry and the South was Agricultural taking away the Souths cheapest form of labour would have been and was devastating.


Are you serious, is this an endorsement of slavery?

EDIT: On a side note, I wonder if free labor would have been much more expensive than slave labor.

Are you serious, is this an endorsement of slavery?

I had to do a double-take on it!