If States Decide to Secede From The Country, Which Side Secedes?

[drudge X]

This country needs a three way split.

1. Those who want to be Chinese concubine, hate Jews and love Hamas.

2. Those in favor of joining Mexico.

3. Those prefer to return to the earlier days of America, say the 50s.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

This country needs a three way split.

1. Those who want to be Chinese concubine, hate Jews and love Hamas.

2. Those in favor of joining Mexico.

3. Those prefer to return to the earlier days of America, say the 50s.

This is pretty good.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think the state most likely to secede will be California. Just look at how much resistance they are putting up to the law.

 

[longly]

"Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. "

Texas v. White | Civil War, Secession, Union | Britannica

Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from the

www.britannica.com

Men in black robes have been wrong before, and that decision was based on nothing in the Constitution. Was it pulled out of thin air? Show me where the Constitution says a state can't secede.

In my opinion, it works like this: states claim the right to leave, and the federal government claims the right to stop them. The result is war. So, if you want to break up the Union, the most humane way to do it is through a divorce.

That's one of the problems with granting Puerto Ricans statehood. What if you grant it, and the independence movement revives? Then we have ourselves a guerrilla war on our hands. Do you go to Puerto Rico, burn their towns, kill their children, destroy their factories, and plunder their economy? It might be wise not to put ourselves in that position in the first place. At the very least, do a lot of thinking before you do it.

.

 

[IM2]

I remember when Biden was president there was talk about some red states possibly wanting to secede from the country. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot and democrats hate the Trump presidency so much and so badly it makes me wonder if blue states would consider seceding from the country. So, this thread assumes that at some point in the future, at least one state, if not more, will have finally hit their limit and want to secede. So, which side will hit the breaking point first, red or blue?

Also, Republicans, while not 100% in lockstep with each other, seem to have their party more together than the democrat infighting, who only have a 25% approval rating and Progressives fighting everyone else for control of the party. If Progressives break off from the party, dooming the left permanently, does that mean it's more likely that blue states would secede first? Dust off your crystal balls and report here what they are telling you.

You really need to stop repeating propaganda. The arrogance on the right is amazing. We on the left don't think like you. And despite what you guys tell yourselves, the record shows that in modern times this nation has prospered more when Democrats were in charge. No blue state is thinking about seceding. But the Democrats are certainly trying to think of ways to stop you right-wingers from driving this country off the cliff. The Republican Party no longer exists. It is now the MAGA party, and MAGA is not something the majority of America likes. The only people always talking about seceding are you white right-wing extremists, and it's only because you can't get everything your way.

 

[longly]

Do you know better than Supreme Court judges?

To settle the matter once and for all, the 14th amendment made secession explicitly unconstitutional.

So, yes, there is something in the constitution which will not allow for any more secessions.

You're welcome.

Where does it say that:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You really need to stop repeating propaganda. The arrogance on the right is amazing. We on the left don't think like you. And despite what you guys tell yourselves, the record shows that in modern times this nation has prospered more when Democrats were in charge. No blue state is thinking about seceding. But the Democrats are certainly trying to think of ways to stop you right-wingers from driving this country off the cliff. The Republican Party no longer exists. It is now the MAGA party, and MAGA is not something the majority of America likes. The only people always talking about seceding are you white right-wing extremists, and it's only because you can't get everything your way.

Well, the right has what it wants now, but the pendulum will swing back sooner or later. However, there is nothing sacred about the Union; it is just a political arrangement we maintain for our own common defense and prosperity. If, at some point in the future, we find it doesn't work for us, it can always change. What makes you think the Union is sacred?

At the moment, the reason I see to maintain the compact is because of the threats we face. Actually, it'd be better if we were even larger, because there are immense dangers on the horizon. But I repeat: there is nothing sacred about the Union. If we didn't need it, we could always get rid of it.

 

[IM2]

Where does it say that:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Well, the right has what it wants now, but the pendulum will swing back sooner or later. However, there is nothing sacred about the Union; it is just a political arrangement we maintain for our own common defense and prosperity. If, at some point in the future, we find it doesn't work for us, it can always change. What makes you think the Union is sacred?

At the moment, the reason I see to maintain the compact is because of the threats we face. Actually, it'd be better if we were even larger, because there are immense dangers on the horizon. But I repeat: there is nothing sacred about the Union. If we didn't need it, we could always get rid of it.

You can stop thinking you're telling me something I don't already know. But if secession happens lot of things end that made life fairy convenient. For example you will need the equivalent 50 order patrols to monitor the 4 borders of every state. Interstate travel as it stands now won't exist and then there is the matter of air space.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

In reality mist blue states are mostly red except for the counties where the fraud happens.

A state like California would not have a good time if they tried succeeding because 80% of the people wouldn't go along with it.

+80% of Americans hate democrats

Democrats = traitors

 

[longly]

In reality mist blue states are mostly red except for the counties where the fraud happens.

A state like California would not have a good time if they tried succeeding because 80% of the people wouldn't go along with it.

+80% of Americans hate democrats

Democrats = traitors

Are you remembering the Cold War—especially the Vietnam era? I remember liberals burning the American flag, praising Castro, making excuses for the Soviet Union, and bombing ROTC buildings. But there were a lot of Democrats who didn’t approve of that back then. There were still many moderate Democrats, but I don’t think that’s the case any longer.

 

[Independent thinker]

You really need to stop repeating propaganda. The arrogance on the right is amazing. We on the left don't think like you. And despite what you guys tell yourselves, the record shows that in modern times this nation has prospered more when Democrats were in charge. No blue state is thinking about seceding. But the Democrats are certainly trying to think of ways to stop you right-wingers from driving this country off the cliff. The Republican Party no longer exists. It is now the MAGA party, and MAGA is not something the majority of America likes. The only people always talking about seceding are you white right-wing extremists, and it's only because you can't get everything your way

Interesting that you seem to have hope for future elections going your way. Are you now admitting that the whole “Trump will take democracy and elections away” thing was a lie?

 

[Chuz Life]

The red states need the blue states because they leech off the blue states' federal revenues.

Well, Dimz love to create, foster and reward government dependency, so what's the problem?

 

[Winco]

Please, really, the entire West Coast needs this.
**** Eastern parts of each State.

The Coastal Pacific Controls the West, what would Eastern WA, OR, Or the CA desert do without the Coastal Support.
Extend that to Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Arizona.
Those States would be **** w/out the Coastal Area.

 

[Unkotare]

...Show me where the Constitution says a state can't secede.

...

.

Read the ruling.