Question only for Americans, obviously, inspired by the 100 or so Texans from the Texas Nationalist movement.
So, it's 1861 all over again, and some States wants to quit the Union, on some issue or another. Except we're now in 2012, and we're supposed to be civilized. That, and some northerners seem fed up with the pro-GOP states.
So a State or some States want to cecede, now. They have held popular assembly, there is a firm democratic resolve in these states behind the idea of independance.
If it were up to you&only you, would you let them secede? Why? Assume it's not your state of residence or origin.
Yes they have the right to secede. But yes it has to be negotiated (in good faith) and can not be done unilaterally.
No.
But I would provide them with the addresses of the closest international consulates, for all their immigration needs.
edit: And naturally, the Canuckitard lawyer steps in with an answer for a "Question only for Americans".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 14, 2012, 11:28:05 AM
edit: And naturally, the Canuckitard lawyer steps in with an answer for a "Question only for Americans".
Naturally. :)
No.
No country would survive if people could split it up every time they don't get their way.
In 1861, sure. Now, no way.
It's a silly hypothetical anyway, as I doubt you could find 10% of the population in support of secession anywhere in the country. Certainly not on the basis of these overwrought "red state/blue state" divisions. Nothing like the case where the South Carolina's legislature voted unanimously to leave the union. You're comparing apples and radioactive grapefruit.
What makes it better in 1861?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 11:34:55 AM
What makes it better in 1861?
The fact that there were much greater divisions within the country and that they were largely dependent upon geography.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
Yes they have the right to secede. But yes it has to be negotiated (in good faith) and can not be done unilaterally.
There is no right to secede. If they did have a right to secede then your second sentence wouldn't be true.
According to the Declaration of Independence secession can only be undertaken legitimately if the individual rights of the people are being abused somehow.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
It's a silly hypothetical anyway,
Dude, remind me where we are again? :P We discussed warp drives, colonization of distant planets, who would win, etc, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 11:38:29 AM
There is no right to secede.
That's right; there was a ratification process that was publicly debated at great length. NO TAKE BACKS
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:38:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 11:34:55 AM
What makes it better in 1861?
The fact that there were much greater divisions within the country and that they were largely dependent upon geography.
There were greater divisions, but they lousy reasons. "We lost an election", is not a good reason to tear the country apart. Not now, not then.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 11:38:29 AM
According to the Declaration of Independence secession can only be undertaken legitimately if the individual rights of the people are being abused somehow.
but who would determine if those rights were abused?
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2012, 11:39:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
It's a silly hypothetical anyway,
Dude, remind me where we are again? :P We discussed warp drives, colonization of distant planets, who would win, etc, etc.
DONT FORGET INTERGALACTIC AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2012, 11:39:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
It's a silly hypothetical anyway,
Dude, remind me where we are again? :P We discussed warp drives, colonization of distant planets, who would win, etc, etc.
Well, you are in Quebec. So I guess this kind of thing is more realistic. If we are going to do this, we should do it with musket, saber, and cannon. I'd love to don the blue and drive the rebel blackguard from the field SQUEE!
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2012, 11:40:29 AM
but who would determine if those rights were abused?
Well that is the real trick isn't it? That is why Jefferson filled the declaration with a long list of British abuses to convince the reader American rights had been abused and thus the secession of the American Colonies was legitimate.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2012, 11:39:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
It's a silly hypothetical anyway,
Dude, remind me where we are again? :P We discussed warp drives, colonization of distant planets, who would win, etc, etc.
I'm just sayin', it's not gonna happen.
If we can get all the mormons to move to Utah then sure.
No Viper, I wouldnt let Quebec Cecede.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 12:48:50 PM
No Viper, I wouldnt let Quebec Cecede.
Just like a Canadian to talk about Quebec in a thread about US states. :rolleyes:
Can't really talk about the US, but living in a federal state myself, I would let a state secede if there is a clear democratic mandate from the population of that state to do so.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 12:48:50 PM
No Viper, I wouldnt let Quebec Cecede.
Just like a Canadian to talk about Quebec in a thread about US states. :rolleyes:
Just like an American not to understand the true intent of the question asked in the OP.
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Can't really talk about the US, but living in a federal state myself, I would let a state secede if there is a clear democratic mandate from the population of that state to do so.
See now there is the answer Viper was looking for
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 12:48:50 PM
No Viper, I wouldnt let Quebec Cecede.
Why not, 7 billion a year save!
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 14, 2012, 12:59:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 12:48:50 PM
No Viper, I wouldnt let Quebec Cecede.
Why not, 7 billion a year save!
And miss out on Viper whining every time our Queen or her family visit Canada - priceless!
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Can't really talk about the US, but living in a federal state myself, I would let a state secede if there is a clear democratic mandate from the population of that state to do so.
I don't think destruction of a country, along with the severe economic and social disruption that goes with that, should be handled like it was any ordinary political matter. Surely you see there are things even a democratic mandate cannot legitimize.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Can't really talk about the US, but living in a federal state myself, I would let a state secede if there is a clear democratic mandate from the population of that state to do so.
I don't think destruction of a country, along with the severe economic and social disruption that goes with that, should be handled like it was any ordinary political matter. Surely you see there are things even a democratic mandate cannot legitimize.
I know you folks had a rather painful experience with secession, but it can be done in a peaceful and orderly manner.
If Texas wanted to secede it would hardly "destroy" the remaining union. Life would go on.
The right to self-determination is well established, and is one that the US has recognized and asserted for other countries. What makes the US so special that it is uniquely indivisible?
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
What makes the US so special that it is uniquely indivisible?
Our Pledge of Allegiance. :smarty:
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
If Texas wanted to secede it would hardly "destroy" the remaining union. Life would go on.
The right to self-determination is well established, and is one that the US has recognized and asserted for other countries. What makes the US so special that it is uniquely indivisible?
I don't believe in group rights and I think our recognition of that has only been a justification for murder and ethnic cleansing. Self determination has meant you need to murder (or breed) your way to 51% to crazy nationalists all over the world.
The US is only indivisible to the extent it respects the rights of its citizens and protects them, as per the Constitution.
And if Texas is seceding it would spell the end of the US. First of all we are part of region of likeminded states, if we are at that point we would not be anywhere near the first state to bolt. Secondly once we do that every single time a State would feel screwed in an election or a decision a secession movement would start, either in earnest or to intimidate the majority into relenting on the point. A Federal Democracy cannot function like that.
QuoteI know you folks had a rather painful experience with secession, but it can be done in a peaceful and orderly manner.
Yeah the history of secession is just full of peace and order. :lol:
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
If we can get all the mormons to move to Utah then sure.
Wouldn't Utah be a little on the small size ? :P
I wouldn't mind our separatist regions seceding as long as Spanish citizens that suddenly find themselves abroad were suitably compensated.
No.
Does the constitution cover secesion? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
Yes they have the right to secede. But yes it has to be negotiated (in good faith) and can not be done unilaterally.
:)
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
Yeah the history of secession is just full of peace and order.
A rather huge instance of secession took place within the last generation and was pretty peaceful and orderly, at least as far as the collapse of a mega-state can be.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 14, 2012, 01:42:07 PM
Does the constitution cover secesion? :unsure:
Nope. The arguements in favor usually revolve around the 10th Amendment.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 14, 2012, 01:46:32 PM
A rather huge instance of secession took place within the last generation and was pretty peaceful and orderly, at least as far as the collapse of a mega-state can be.
That certainly could have been worse that was for sure. It was more or less peaceful (with some pretty notable exceptions) but certainly not very orderly.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
If Texas wanted to secede it would hardly "destroy" the remaining union. Life would go on.
The right to self-determination is well established, and is one that the US has recognized and asserted for other countries. What makes the US so special that it is uniquely indivisible?
I don't believe in group rights and I think our recognition of that has only been a justification for murder and ethnic cleansing. Self determination has meant you need to murder (or breed) your way to 51% to crazy nationalists all over the world.
The US is only indivisible to the extent it respects the rights of its citizens and protects them, as per the Constitution.
And if Texas is seceding it would spell the end of the US. First of all we are part of region of likeminded states, if we are at that point we would not be anywhere near the first state to bolt. Secondly once we do that every single time a State would feel screwed in an election or a decision a secession movement would start, either in earnest or to intimidate the majority into relenting on the point. A Federal Democracy cannot function like that.
Except that in the real world states or regions don't bolt just because they lost an election. A minority may sqwack about independence, but it doesn't go anywhere. In order to get sufficient support for secession you need a fairly substantial grievance.
51% may or may not be sufficient by the way. The SCC in it's constitutional question said the following:
QuoteQuebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, the federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities.
Note the repeated references to a "clear majority".
Quote
QuoteI know you folks had a rather painful experience with secession, but it can be done in a peaceful and orderly manner.
Yeah the history of secession is just full of peace and order. :lol:
You are perhaps familiar with the nation formerly known as Czechoslovakia?
If it's California or the Deep South, yes.
Why would we get rid of California? It's paying the bills for a lot of the other states. Now, if we could just take away their representation...
Quote from: Habbaku on November 14, 2012, 02:05:46 PM
Why would we get rid of California? It's paying the bills for a lot of the other states. Now, if we could just take away their representation...
It won't pay the bills when there's a reckoning on it's debt.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 14, 2012, 12:48:50 PM
No Viper, I wouldnt let Quebec Cecede.
Just like a Canadian to talk about Quebec in a thread about US states. :rolleyes:
yes, I was only asking Americans. I don't care about what Canadians think of Quebec seperation issue.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
Yeah the history of secession is just full of peace and order. :lol:
It tends to happen after a long list of abuse...
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 01:09:25 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2012, 12:55:43 PM
Can't really talk about the US, but living in a federal state myself, I would let a state secede if there is a clear democratic mandate from the population of that state to do so.
I don't think destruction of a country, along with the severe economic and social disruption that goes with that, should be handled like it was any ordinary political matter. Surely you see there are things even a democratic mandate cannot legitimize.
Definitely. But I am not sure if secession is one of those. We did the opposite and de facto annexed another state 22 years ago and ended its existence. There was a very clear democratic mandate to do so and while it caused severe economic and social disruption, it was both worth it and legitimate. Not an ordinary political matter for sure, but then secession seems to be a very extraordinary act in democratic states. The Czechoslovaks splitting their country is one that I can think of.
Only if I keep United States citizenship and additionally become a citizen of Jesusland.
Well, theoretically it's possible. After all, the US stood gleefully by while civilization was retarded by the destruction of the European Empires, and even helped to damage the well-being of all humanity. That said, it's a terrible idea and should be resisted at all costs. Governments should always grow larger, never smaller.
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:51:33 PM
Except that in the real world states or regions don't bolt just because they lost an election. A minority may sqwack about independence, but it doesn't go anywhere. In order to get sufficient support for secession you need a fairly substantial grievance.
Yet this is precisely what happened in the US. The South didn't get what it wanted in an election and decided to take it's ball and leave.
Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2012, 02:10:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
Yeah the history of secession is just full of peace and order. :lol:
It tends to happen after a long list of abuse...
Like having words in their language the same size as words in your language!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:27:26 PM
Yet this is precisely what happened in the US. The South didn't get what it wanted in an election and decided to take it's ball and leave.
The South saw that they'd never get what they wanted in elections because they weren't having the same one and the North was bigger. :contract:
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2012, 01:18:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 14, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
What makes the US so special that it is uniquely indivisible?
Our Pledge of Allegiance. :smarty:
They can change that.. they added under god to it in the 1950's, I'm sure they can take out indivisibility in the 2010's.
BTW, lawtalkers, what is the state of the accession treaty? Did Rebellion void it? Did Reconstruction and the 14th amendment cancel it?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 03:32:15 PM
The South saw that they'd never get what they wanted in elections because they weren't having the same one and the North was bigger. :contract:
Unfortunately what they wanted was to have their rights to their slaves secured. That sorta kills whatever whines they might have over being a minority.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 14, 2012, 03:32:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:27:26 PM
Yet this is precisely what happened in the US. The South didn't get what it wanted in an election and decided to take it's ball and leave.
The South saw that they'd never get what they wanted in elections because they weren't having the same one and the North was bigger. :contract:
They had gotten what they wanted. The South was the dominate force in the US up until 1860. The system was set up to favor them. As the North grew and industrialized, the South stagnated. Because of this, power shifted and the Southern elites couldn't tolerate not being in charge.
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2012, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
If we can get all the mormons to move to Utah then sure.
Wouldn't Utah be a little on the small size ? :P
Just a little bit smaller than Great Britian.
Quote from: dps on November 14, 2012, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2012, 01:30:24 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 14, 2012, 12:17:50 PM
If we can get all the mormons to move to Utah then sure.
Wouldn't Utah be a little on the small size ? :P
Just a little bit smaller than Great Britian.
So pretty damn small
If we give 'em all 6 feet by 6 feet there is plenty of left over room.
Down with treason!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Fblogs%2Fthe_vault%2F2012%2F11%2F14%2Floyaltyoath.jpg.CROP.article920-large.jpg&hash=bbc54ff8bbb0df176f6bd65acff252d0f37cdc29)
Quote from: Neil on November 14, 2012, 03:11:26 PM
Well, theoretically it's possible. After all, the US stood gleefully by while civilization was retarded by the destruction of the European Empires, and even helped to damage the well-being of all humanity. That said, it's a terrible idea and should be resisted at all costs. Governments should always grow larger, never smaller.
Big is beautiful?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:28:49 PM
Like having words in their language the same size as words in your language!
Ask the British Columbians. They now feel threatened by Chinese signs.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2012, 12:34:27 AM
Down with treason!
given that your entire country is built on treason I'd be careful with what you wish for. :-)
Quote from: viper37 on November 15, 2012, 12:40:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:28:49 PM
Like having words in their language the same size as words in your language!
Ask the British Columbians. They now feel threatened by Chinese signs.
Canadians feel threatened by strange things.