Is secession really legally impossible?

[ihopehefails]

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

You are AMAZINGLY stupid.

 

[xotoxi]

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

2/3rd of states are required to pass an amendment. Would you include the votes of those states that were requesting to leave? And what would happen if all of the states voted to allow state X to leave, and then when the vote came up for state Y to leave it fell one vote short because state X was no longer in the union? And what if individual states refused to even vote on the proposal?

There are a lot of problems with your theory resulting in the fact that no state will ever leave this union.

 

[emilynghiem]

I would go with other ways to enforce autonomy and self representation that do not require additional legislation necessarily though it might help:
1. setting up your own business or charity that solves the problems you do not want govt interfering with or wasting money on; then deducting all business investments up to 100% off your taxes so you direct where your money goes. This can be done as a school, an online consulting group or media institution, radio or microlending fund, or homeowners association where you govern a whole neighborhood, district or community and implement programs as a charity or business.
2. mediating and resolving all conflicts by consensus, and enforcing this standard with other people and institutions you deal with. ethics-commission.net

So if you start with your community or issues you care most about, and set up your own programs and solutions, there is no reason you cannot fund that and represent yourself that way, independent of what people in office or government are doing. You have equal right and authority to operate your own programs and policies by your beliefs as any other human being. If any legislative change is needed, it is to prevent laws from being abused to give corporations or officials immunity or authority to override individuals who are equal.

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

As for debts, why not set up a system of funding reparations to pay back taxpayers by issuing bond or currency against the debts and damages for corporate or govt corruption. The same way the Fed was set up by private investors using legislation they wrote and enacted, citizens can form collectives and do similar but locally.
I would use a combination of the Ithaca HOURS system and microlending to do this.
http://www.ithacahours.com or http://www.ithacahours.org
http://www.grameenfoundation.org
http://www.modestneeds.org
You can set up your own local currency and advertise local banks and businesses that agree to support the network and circulate the money, and it's already legal if you follow existing laws.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No. First up, the practical issue is that if the 50 states left the Union and tried to weasel out of the debt, they'd be invaided quickly by foreign powers looking to collect. Even without military intervention, the rest of the world would quickly destroy any state attempting to welch on its debt with political and economic means.

The other practicality is that with a few very notable suggestions, the States as we know them couldn't survive independently for very long. A large chunk of them take in more from tax revenue than they pay to the Feds, and those that pay more in Federal Taxes than they get back have economies that are closely tied to the other 50 states, and even foreign powers. That isn't even touching the military aspects of how long an independent state would last.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Once you secede, the law no longer applies to you, as you're no longer apart of that country.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Once you succeed, the law no longer applies to you, as you're no longer apart of that country.

Or, to carry it further, you have no further right to claim protection under the law.

So if, for example, Texas decided to hit the road and China brought enormous amounts of political and economic consequences down on them in order to collect on their debt.... well that's a Texas problem now.

States that leave may want to pretend that they won't take with them a signifigant portion of the Federal Debt, but folks with more Money, Political Power, and bigger militaries are NOT likely to agree. Nor would they be likely to ever get credit on the international markets if they were unwilling to own up to their share.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Or, to carry it further, you have no further right to claim protection under the law.[of the nation you have seceeded from]

Yes. It goes both ways.

*my specification

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once you succeed, the law no longer applies to you, as you're no longer apart of that country.

That's begging the question. The question being, do you have the authority to declare that the law no longer applies to you.

Among the many issues, a state is comprised mostly of U.S. citizens, who have Constitutional rights, protections, and obligations as U.S. citizens. A state has no right to revoke your citizenship, and thus cannot void any rights, protections, and obligations you have as a U.S. citizen.

 

[ihopehefails]

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

You are AMAZINGLY the most brilliant person on the face of the earth.

I was just throwing out a topic for discussion.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Once you succeed, the law no longer applies to you, as you're no longer apart of that country.

That's begging the question. The question being, do you have the authority to declare that the law no longer applies to you.

Do you believe in the right to self determination? Were we justified in casting off the tyranny of the Crown?

Among the many issues, a state is comprised mostly of U.S. citizens, who have Constitutional rights, protections, and obligations as U.S. citizens. A state has no right to revoke your citizenship, and thus cannot void any rights, protections, and obligations you have as a U.S. citizen.

The State does not act. The People of the states act, using the machination of the states as their proxy. At least- that's how its supposed to work in a representative system.

 

[ihopehefails]

I know all the legal arguments have gone back and forth and lets say the anti-secessionist are correct does that still make secession impossible to do under the constitution? All one would have to do is pass a constitutional amendment declaring that XYZ states are no longer a part of the union.

This can provide a solution to our national debt because all 50 states can seceede from Washington DC and allow it to be its own city-state like singapore. The fifty states can now be debt free as Washington, being a part of the old USA, is still obligated to those debts.

Think about that for a moment...

2/3rd of states are required to pass an amendment. Would you include the votes of those states that were requesting to leave? And what would happen if all of the states voted to allow state X to leave, and then when the vote came up for state Y to leave it fell one vote short because state X was no longer in the union? And what if individual states refused to even vote on the proposal?

There are a lot of problems with your theory resulting in the fact that no state will ever leave this union.

While the vote is taking place the states wanting to leave can vote within the union since it is there right. Everything in the constitutin still applies. After they leave they can not vote.

 

[namvet]

is this experimental gov really this bad ??? i think so. never heard this considered before on this large of scale till now. its a yardstick on just how bad mainstram America looks at Osama and wants to be rid of him

 

[Dr.Traveler]

is this experimental gov really this bad ??? i think so. never heard this considered before on this large of scale till now. its a yardstick on just how bad mainstram America looks at Osama and wants to be rid of him

Its sheer irrationality on the part of the Right wing.

Though I have to say its likely that you'll hear more talk like this from the middle of the spectrum once the GOP come back in 2010 and prove they're no better than they were under Bush/DeLay/Frist. People rejected the GOP because they were corrupt and outright stupid. They're getting ready to reject the DNC for similar lines. The system won't support much more radical bouncing back and forth.

Either the GOP step up and prove they deserve the chance to govern, or we could all be in real trouble.

 

[emilynghiem]

Once you succeed, the law no longer applies to you, as you're no longer apart of that country.

Or, to carry it further, you have no further right to claim protection under the law.

So if, for example, Texas decided to hit the road and China brought enormous amounts of political and economic consequences down on them in order to collect on their debt.... well that's a Texas problem now.

States that leave may want to pretend that they won't take with them a signifigant portion of the Federal Debt, but folks with more Money, Political Power, and bigger militaries are NOT likely to agree. Nor would they be likely to ever get credit on the international markets if they were unwilling to own up to their share.

1. If you argue that the people whose authority you challenge have "broken or nulled" the contract by violating its provisions (such as the Constitutional amendment about equal protections of the laws to all citizens within state jurisdiction), then as long as YOU are enforcing and not breaking the laws also, then you have the right to enforce those laws.

If both parties are in violation, they can still mediate and establish an agreed contract as to what provisions or conditions should be changed or rectified to uphold the original law.

2. As for Texas, see Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." -- Article I, Section 2, Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution

This is the closest local equivalent I have found of the "consent of the governed" from the Declaration of Independence:
"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 to 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. " -- Declaration of Independence

See also the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, by which any person can demand enforcement of Constitutional standards: ethics-commission.net

So if Corporations and the officials they influence can write and interpret laws to protect THEIR interests (even where this is selfish and violates equal protections of others), certainly the citizens have the right to do the same for the RIGHT reasons to protect people equally from infringement. Instead of "civil disobedience" that marginalizes the protestors and treats citizens as criminal rebels for enforcing Constitutional laws, why not enforce "civil obedience" and declare the wrongdoers as the ones in the wrong.

Any person, not just a police officer, can stop a crime and use defenses to protect others being harmed or wronged. Any citizens, not just a government official, can arrest corruption. Whoever is enforcing the law has the right to rebuke others; and if people are not respecting and/or breaking the law, they lose the right to invoke protections under it.

This applies to either citizens or government or corporations.
It is just not being enforced equally because people are not treated as equal; those with collective authority or resources have more influence and can bully or silence those with less.
So it takes time to organize the law-abiding citizens into coalitions or movements to have the same effectiveness in law enforcement and Constitutional protections, but it's there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once you succeed, the law no longer applies to you, as you're no longer apart of that country.

That's begging the question. The question being, do you have the authority to declare that the law no longer applies to you.

Do you believe in the right to self determination? Were we justified in casting off the tyranny of the Crown?

Among the many issues, a state is comprised mostly of U.S. citizens, who have Constitutional rights, protections, and obligations as U.S. citizens. A state has no right to revoke your citizenship, and thus cannot void any rights, protections, and obligations you have as a U.S. citizen.

The State does not act. The People of the states act, using the machination of the states as their proxy. At least- that's how its supposed to work in a representative system.

We did not LEGALLY secede from England.

A state cannot constutionally, unilaterally deprive U.S. citizens of their rights, protections, or obligations, even if a majority of the state's residents or representatives chose to do so.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The law means nothing next to the rights of men.

 

[ihopehefails]

That's begging the question. The question being, do you have the authority to declare that the law no longer applies to you.

Do you believe in the right to self determination? Were we justified in casting off the tyranny of the Crown?

Among the many issues, a state is comprised mostly of U.S. citizens, who have Constitutional rights, protections, and obligations as U.S. citizens. A state has no right to revoke your citizenship, and thus cannot void any rights, protections, and obligations you have as a U.S. citizen.

The State does not act. The People of the states act, using the machination of the states as their proxy. At least- that's how its supposed to work in a representative system.

We did not LEGALLY secede from England.

A state cannot constutionally, unilaterally deprive U.S. citizens of their rights, protections, or obligations, even if a majority of the state's residents or representatives chose to do so.

Where are these obligations written in the constitution where it says a citizen is obliged to do this or that? I do see where it is written state and federal government has certain obligation spelled out for them to do but those have been largely ignored so if people in power can declare the constitution's authority over them null and void then so can states and citizens for the same reason because you can't say law only applies to one group of citizens (people who occupy the seats of power) and not to the other because the law has to be applied equally to everyone or not at all.

Also, states are only limited by the specific restrictions placed on them in the constitution. Those restrictions are very few. A state can do anything under the constitution as long as it does not violate one of those restrictions such as limiting people's right to vote. If that restriction protects citizens in that state then only that restriction can be enforced onto the states.

In other words, all rights that are protected under the constitution that states are restricted from violating have to be specifically restricted such as voting rights, equal protection clause, and etc.

 

[geauxtohell]

Discussing the "legalities" of secession is absurd when stacked against the pragmatic reality of what would happen if a state tried to leave the union.

The concept is so tangential to the constitution, that it isn't adequately addressed. That's the truth, and don't shoot me full of a bunch of bullshit about the 10th amendment. It's kind of hard to use a document you are trying to absolve yourself form to make a proper legal argument.

Traitors deserve the cold steel. Just as they did in 1861. I could care less if that sentiment means the neo-secessionists call me dirty names.

I won't shed a tear for anyone that takes up arms against our country.

 

[ihopehefails]

Discussing the "legalities" of secession is absurd when stacked against the pragmatic reality of what would happen if a state tried to leave the union.

The concept is so tangential to the constitution, that it isn't adequately addressed. That's the truth, and don't shoot me full of a bunch of bullshit about the 10th amendment. It's kind of hard to use a document you are trying to absolve yourself form to make a proper legal argument.

Traitors deserve the cold steel. Just as they did in 1861. I could care less if that sentiment means the neo-secessionists call me dirty names.

I won't shed a tear for anyone that takes up arms against our country.

No name calling but while you are a member you can use whatever mechanism that membership affords to you such as amending the constitution to allow certain states to leave or even dissolve the compact itself. The nice thing about this is that it is a democratic choice of the participants since the amendment has to be approved of with the amendment process.