Is States Secession in the Future for USA???

[007]

A more likely scenario is that Mexico will invade the southwest, Russia will invade Alaska, and the Canadians will take over shipping in the St. Lawrence River. At that point The Northeast states will declare gay marriage as the law of the land and because of that The South will secede, taking along wit it Texas and Louisiana. The northeast states will declare war but we'll simply cut off the oil and natural gas pipelines to them. Maybe Japan will take over Hawaii and what's left of California and the west coast.

Aaahh glock.... that's what happening now...

 

[007]

However, was this nation to split up for whatever hypothetical reason, it would more than likely be a regional thing. It already divides our politics.

I've always said that if there's ever states secession, it will be divided along conservative and liberal ideals. Not money, not land, not population, but ideals. Liberals want to tax this country into socialism, they push for morality ever closer to the sewer, and they want to disarm us not to mention the ever present and growing more vile war against Christianity. Conservatives stand against every bit of it. That's what will divide our country to the point of state secession and possible second Civil War. I think we may NEED it. Liberals hate war, and guns, and just want to all hold hands and sing Kumbaya and give peace a chance.... right? Well then, it should be a quick and clean victory for the conservatives, and we could take our country back.

 

[mightypeon]

Some interesting stuff here, just going from economic potential I would rate California as the strongest though, iirc it would be in the G8 if it would be counted alone.
Now enter some Chinese or Japanese military aid to "protect their ethnic minorities" and there you go.
In Europe, kinda equivalent stuff could happen with the British minors, with Belgium (50/50 language split) or with Bavaria (which would also be in the G8 if independent).

 

[Red Dawn]

A more likely scenario is...

that Mexico will invade the southwest,

Russia will invade Alaska,

and the Canadians will take over shipping in the St. Lawrence River.

At that point The Northeast states will declare gay marriage as the law of the land and because of that The South will secede, taking along wit it Texas and Louisiana.

The northeast states will declare war but we'll simply cut off the oil and natural gas pipelines to them.

Maybe Japan will take over Hawaii and what's left of California and the west coast.

Priceless!


I think Venezuela will take over Texas; Cuba will invade and conquer Florida; and Aliens will land at Area 51 to seek revenge for those horrific alien autopsies we performed on their fellow space travelers.

 

[Orange_Juice]

The real sucess of America is that it is one giant free trade zone. Secession not only would be counter productive, but pretty much useless. As the countries of the world are starting to move towards non-national soveriegnty the idea that the states will break away is foolish.

 

[editec]

So, in your opinion, the colonies committed an illegal act when they seceded from Great Britain? I mean, they obviously knew that King George wasn't exactly going to let them go without a fight, so since they knew it would lead to war it was illegal?

The Revolutionary War was a consequence of the colonies declaring independence, or seceding, from Great Britain. Therefore, if we use your logic, it was illegal for the Continental Congress to declare independence from Great Britain.

It was. It was (if you're of a legalistic bent) entirely illegal. It was TREASON.

Nations do NOT live by laws, they live or die based on their power to impose their will on their own people, and on other nations.

Laws have nothing to do with nations, unless the nations voluntarily agree to live by them.

And even then, those laws are only as good as the nations' ability to enforce them.

I noted in a few posts that some of you imagine that the MONROE DOCTRINE is some kind of international law, and, for example, that the USA had the LEGAL HIGH GROUND -- the legal authority -- when it imposed an embargo on Russia during the Cuban missle crises.

The MONROE DOCTRINE, first of all is not a law.

It's merely a doctrine of the US government.

Sowhen we first delcared this policy, it only mean shit to the rest of the world because the BRITISH NAVY was there to back it up. (yeah, that's right, the Brits, not the USA gave that doctine authority)

Of course by the Cuban Missle crises, it was the US Navy that gave that doctrine teeth, too.

Debating law about a subject like this is simply silly.

Our consitution is only as powerful as our ability to back it up.

 

[Helsetemp]

"Basically, secession would require a successful armed rebellion."

Secession may be accomplished via Constitutional Convention

 

[Helsetemp]

Renew effort to create amendment to constitution creating notice and voting requirements for national referendum to create quasi sovereign jurisdictions similar to the reorganization to the USSR.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Anyone who seriously considered secceding is a traitor plain and simple.

If you don't like being part of the US of A then you can go to one of the other countries that is breaking up.

Hang in there for a little longer, Obama may be able to bring back what was once a great country with the laws and a moral code that the founding fathers set up.

 

[bk1983]

Being taking over by Japan...hmmm...well I do have a lot of Japanese friends and it is the cleanest country I've ever seen. Of course, most of the Japanese that come here want to remain here, but well, I would love to live in Japan. They have one of the best public transportation systems in the world. The people are friendly. Heck, they leave their bicycles out at night and don't even have to lock them, so no petty crime. Not sure that would be all bad.

You do know the reason for this lack of petty crime right? The Yakuza in Japan is the primary force in containing petty crime, and keeping violence within their own ranks. They act almost as an alternative police force, when commiting crimes in Japan, you better have the blessings of the Yakuza, otherwise prison is the least of your worries.

 

[DiveCon]

Anyone who seriously considered secceding is a traitor plain and simple.

If you don't like being part of the US of A then you can go to one of the other countries that is breaking up.

Hang in there for a little longer, Obama may be able to bring back what was once a great country with the laws and a moral code that the founding fathers set up.

i dont think you have to worry about that, any more than we were worried about you guys doing it after 2000 and 2004
however, a lot on your side DID say it then as well
LOL

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anyone who seriously considered secceding is a traitor plain and simple.

Wrong. If the government is becoming abusive and tyrannical then it is the duty of the people to remove them or to leave them and start a government that will defend their liberty.

 

[Orange_Juice]

Wrong. If the government is becoming abusive and tyrannical then it is the duty of the people to remove them or to leave them and start a government that will defend their liberty.

Yes, but who is to define "tyranical?"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, but who is to define "tyranical?"

Anyone that can convince enough people that they are correct.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams

 

[PeterS]

You are correct, that is what Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution states among other things. However, when one secedes from the United States the Constitution of the United States no longer applies does it? That would be why the Confederate States ratified their own Constitution. And no where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government can stop a state from seceding.

So if I reject rule of law then rule of law doesn't exist and I [a state] can do as I like, correct? Do I need to point out the fallacy or can you spot it for yourself?

As in, I secede from the Union by myself?

No, as in you [a state] tries to secede. Our succession from England was based on England's violation of social contract. To have a case for succession a state would have to show very clear violation of the social contract otherwise the federal government would have every right to hold the union together. Admission into the union was never intended to be a flippant act but one that required ratification by a super majority. Why would you think anything less would be required to leave?

 

[Orange_Juice]

Anyone that can convince enough people that they are correct.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams

Exactly, so an unpopular attempt at secession is treason. Like the South in 1860, the majority of the people in the south--if you include the slaves--were against secession

 

[PeterS]

Wrong. If the government is becoming abusive and tyrannical then it is the duty of the people to remove them or to leave them and start a government that will defend their liberty.

As in vote them out of office? Isn't that how its done?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So if I reject rule of law then rule of law doesn't exist and I [a state] can do as I like, correct? Do I need to point out the fallacy or can you spot it for yourself?



No, as in you [a state] tries to secede. Our succession from England was based on England's violation of social contract. To have a case for succession a state would have to show very clear violation of the social contract otherwise the federal government would have every right to hold the union together. Admission into the union was never intended to be a flippant act but one that required ratification by a super majority. Why would you think anything less would be required to leave?

Laws are meant to protect the liberties of others. If another state seceded from the Union it doesn't affect your liberty, and you therefore have no right to try and stop them.

Well I am not a state, and I see no reason for Ohio to secede from the Union. Notice that I have not said anywhere in this thread that I personally want anyone to secede, merely that they have the right to do so.

The government was hurting the southern states by imposing protectionist tariffs on imported goods, so they decided to create their own government that would protect and defend their rights.

 

[DiveCon]

As in vote them out of office? Isn't that how its done?

well, it was done in 94 and 06 and 08, so i guess often enough

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Exactly, so an unpopular attempt at secession is treason. Like the South in 1860, the majority of the people in the south--if you include the slaves--were against secession

No, an unpopular attempt at secession is not going to happen. In 1814 the New England states held a convention to discuss whether they should secede, which they decided against.

If the south hadn't seceded the slaves' lives would not have improved at all. Lincoln stated many times that he did not support and did not feel that he had legal authority to end slavery in the states that it existed. I doubt very seriously that the slaves cared one way or the other. Now, maybe they would have been emancipated earlier if the south hadn't seceded, or maybe at the same time that they were. We can only guess. But they certainly had no reason to believe that they would be.