RW'ers: If in power, would you let a state break away from the union if they wanted?

[SFC Ollie]

If is a mighty big word....... And ifs just don't mean much.

What if a state did want to secede? There would probably be years of diplomacy and court actions before anything else....

Besides it's not going to happen.......

 

[R.C. Christian]

Absolutely. Let's balkanize this mother F'r.

 

[Old Rocks]

Issue settled at Appomatox Court House. Enough said.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Quick question for Republicans and Libertarians. I know your type really looks up to the Founding Fathers and puts them on a high pedestal. And that's fine, they were great men. But, they were unhappy under British rule, they didn't like the laws they were under, so they rebelled, and broke away.

Would you support a state doing that? Seriously, lets say the GOP wins in 2016. Lets say the GOP wins the House and Senate next year, then the White House in 2016.

But, a state like Florida, or lets say, New Hampshire, wants to break off from the union. Lets use Florida.

Florida puts it to a statewide vote, and 95% vote to break away from the United States. The state says they don't like federal laws, and they want their right to be FREE.....just like the Founding Fathers.

If they did that, and declared independence, and started printing their own money, and put up walls on the Florida/GA/AL border, and armed it with a state military that they formed.....would you in power order the Federal government to crack down on that state? Or, allow them to break off and gain the freedom they want?

Your answer matters a lot, as it shows a macro version of your thoughts towards a people's right to freedom.

^ Used to be a Republican

Uh huh

 

[bucs90]

What would be the argument on why a state should not be allowed to secede

-Geaux

It could destabilize the Union. It would show huge instability and scare the world away from our markets. That's one reason.

Its called governing. No matter how big or small the issue, there are several sides to it, and they wont all fit on a Ted Cruz bumper sticker.

 

[Geaux4it]

What would be the argument on why a state should not be allowed to secede

-Geaux

It could destabilize the Union. It would show huge instability and scare the world away from our markets. That's one reason.

Its called governing. No matter how big or small the issue, there are several sides to it, and they wont all fit on a Ted Cruz bumper sticker.

Good job

-Geaux

 

[bripat9643]

Quick question for Republicans and Libertarians. I know your type really looks up to the Founding Fathers and puts them on a high pedestal. And that's fine, they were great men. But, they were unhappy under British rule, they didn't like the laws they were under, so they rebelled, and broke away.

Would you support a state doing that? Seriously, lets say the GOP wins in 2016. Lets say the GOP wins the House and Senate next year, then the White House in 2016.

But, a state like Florida, or lets say, New Hampshire, wants to break off from the union. Lets use Florida.

Florida puts it to a statewide vote, and 95% vote to break away from the United States. The state says they don't like federal laws, and they want their right to be FREE.....just like the Founding Fathers.

If they did that, and declared independence, and started printing their own money, and put up walls on the Florida/GA/AL border, and armed it with a state military that they formed.....would you in power order the Federal government to crack down on that state? Or, allow them to break off and gain the freedom they want?

Your answer matters a lot, as it shows a macro version of your thoughts towards a people's right to freedom.

I would, but I doubt Republicans in Congress would allow it. However, I doubt the federal government would invade a state of the union, in this day and age. So what would Congress do if a state seceded?

 

[bripat9643]

Uhhhh...

Why are you predisposed to asking such farfetched questions? Nobody wants this country to dissolve. We would much rather have freedom as a whole than freedom in part. What good is being American if you secede? What good is living the Founding Fathers dream if you destroy what they fought and died for to create? The entire idea is preposterous. Your post is stereotypical and offensive.

You aren't going to get freedom as a whole, any more than the people of the former Soviet Union were going to obtain their freedom without splitting up. That's what happens to empires, the become more oppressive and more sclerotic until the crumble into pieces. That's the only hope for freedom. Continuing this beast only means every more oppression.

 

[Katzndogz]

[IngQUOTE=TemplarKormac;8190774]Uhhhh...

Why are you predisposed to asking such farfetched questions? Nobody wants this country to dissolve. We would much rather have freedom as a whole than freedom in part. What good is being American if you secede? What good is living the Founding Fathers dream if you destroy what they fought and died for to create? The entire idea is preposterous. Your post is stereotypical and offensive.[/QUOTE]

It isn't destroying what the founding fathers fought for. It's fulfilling their dream.

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with one another .....

Who wrote that? What did they say about the right and duty of the people to abolish a destructive government?

 

[bripat9643]

What would be the argument on why a state should not be allowed to secede

-Geaux

It could destabilize the Union. It would show huge instability and scare the world away from our markets. That's one reason.

Its called governing. No matter how big or small the issue, there are several sides to it, and they wont all fit on a Ted Cruz bumper sticker.

When has "instability" ever dissuaded businessmen from selling their wares to a paying customer? It might encourage investors to look elsewhere, but I think that is inevitable as this aging creaky old empire plods down the road to a well deserved death.

 

[blackhawk]

The thread and question is nothing more than a set up if you do nothing you would be labeled a radical extremist who is allowing the country to be destroyed if you crack down you would be a radical extremist trampling on people's freedoms this along with the fact this same scenario was not applied to the Democrats and their possible response says it all.

ITs also a scenario lots of governments in this world have faced. I picked a HUGE, history altering scenario to ask right wingers to say HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN.

A few months ago, I asked the polar opposite. An extremely MINOR one. Speed bumps, vs total freedom, vs more cops to enforce speed, on any given road. RW'ers again said it was a dumb scenario.

Point is....right wingers often refuse to say how they would govern if elected. WHy vote for them if they have NO PLAN other than....."Errrr low taxes, more guns and Jesus!!!"

If people voted FOR something, and you were in power, would you allow it, or obstruct it?

Right wingers are not fit to govern if they cant answer very big, or very small, issues that governments must answer.

If you want to pretend your doing some grand experiment in how Republicans would govern in your extreme hypothetical situation knock yourself out but don't waste my time with it this is nothing more than a very obvious ploy to dam someone no matter which way they answer. If you really want to play this to it's illogical partisan end then lets go the whole nine yards and include the Democrats as well so left wingers what would do if you were in power in the OP scenario? Remember according to the OP if can't answer your not fit to govern.

 

[bucs90]

The thread and question is nothing more than a set up if you do nothing you would be labeled a radical extremist who is allowing the country to be destroyed if you crack down you would be a radical extremist trampling on people's freedoms this along with the fact this same scenario was not applied to the Democrats and their possible response says it all.

ITs also a scenario lots of governments in this world have faced. I picked a HUGE, history altering scenario to ask right wingers to say HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN.

A few months ago, I asked the polar opposite. An extremely MINOR one. Speed bumps, vs total freedom, vs more cops to enforce speed, on any given road. RW'ers again said it was a dumb scenario.

Point is....right wingers often refuse to say how they would govern if elected. WHy vote for them if they have NO PLAN other than....."Errrr low taxes, more guns and Jesus!!!"

If people voted FOR something, and you were in power, would you allow it, or obstruct it?

Right wingers are not fit to govern if they cant answer very big, or very small, issues that governments must answer.

If you want to pretend your doing some grand experiment in how Republicans would govern in your extreme hypothetical situation knock yourself out but don't waste my time with it this is nothing more than a very obvious ploy to dam someone no matter which way they answer. If you really want to play this to it's illogical partisan end then lets go the whole nine yards and include the Democrats as well so left wingers what would do if you were in power in the OP scenario? Remember according to the OP if can't answer your not fit to govern.

Ok. Easy. I wouldn't allow it. Putting up a wall, like my example said, would violate interstate commerce. If it came to it, sending in the military to take down the wall would happen. Residents of Florida the other 47 mainland states would not be cut off.

Their new money would not be recognized by the US. They'd do no business in the US with that money.

They are part of the union. And even though they may have voted within their state to leave, the other 49 state would vote otherwise, and with all the states being so interconnected in our society and economy now, it would be too destabilizing to allow.

I would vote not to allow it. And take whatever measures it took to stop it.

 

[blackhawk]

ITs also a scenario lots of governments in this world have faced. I picked a HUGE, history altering scenario to ask right wingers to say HOW THEY WOULD GOVERN.

A few months ago, I asked the polar opposite. An extremely MINOR one. Speed bumps, vs total freedom, vs more cops to enforce speed, on any given road. RW'ers again said it was a dumb scenario.

Point is....right wingers often refuse to say how they would govern if elected. WHy vote for them if they have NO PLAN other than....."Errrr low taxes, more guns and Jesus!!!"

If people voted FOR something, and you were in power, would you allow it, or obstruct it?

Right wingers are not fit to govern if they cant answer very big, or very small, issues that governments must answer.

If you want to pretend your doing some grand experiment in how Republicans would govern in your extreme hypothetical situation knock yourself out but don't waste my time with it this is nothing more than a very obvious ploy to dam someone no matter which way they answer. If you really want to play this to it's illogical partisan end then lets go the whole nine yards and include the Democrats as well so left wingers what would do if you were in power in the OP scenario? Remember according to the OP if can't answer your not fit to govern.

Ok. Easy. I wouldn't allow it. Putting up a wall, like my example said, would violate interstate commerce. If it came to it, sending in the military to take down the wall would happen. Residents of Florida the other 47 mainland states would not be cut off.

Their new money would not be recognized by the US. They'd do no business in the US with that money.

They are part of the union. And even though they may have voted within their state to leave, the other 49 state would vote otherwise, and with all the states being so interconnected in our society and economy now, it would be too destabilizing to allow.

I would vote not to allow it. And take whatever measures it took to stop it.

Ok fine of course you do realize the example you laid out is about as likely to happen as invasion form outer space. Lets try a more recent and realistic example as we all know Harry Reid and the Democrats just pulled a major switch on the Senate filibuster rules lets say the Republicans had done this in 2005 then the Democrats who were outraged about this in 2005 took control of the Senate would you leave the change and use it to your political advantage or stand by your convictions of 2005 and change it back to the 60 vote rule? I would vote to change it back because as I stated on another thread sooner or later one party or the other will try and expand this to include legislation and some day probably Supreme Court nominations.

 

[Avatar4321]

The rest of the states would have to agree with them seceding. If they did, then fine. If not, then no. When the agreed to honor, sustain and obey the Constitution it created a social covenant between us all. Social covenants can only be dissolved when all agree to it or through violence.

 

[Clementine]

California would have my blessing if the majority of their citizens wanted to allow Mexico to take control of it and split from the rest of us. It would suck, but times have changed and many places aren't happy to be part of the good ole USA. Some prefer socialism and they don't want to move to the existing socialist countries, so I suppose they have a right to create their own. I wouldn't hesitate to move to a state willing to secede from the union if this country turned socialist or communist. Bad enough we have idiot commies who live to ***** about the free market, but I would never live under their rule.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Quick question for Republicans and Libertarians. I know your type really looks up to the Founding Fathers and puts them on a high pedestal. And that's fine, they were great men. But, they were unhappy under British rule, they didn't like the laws they were under, so they rebelled, and broke away.

Would you support a state doing that? Seriously, lets say the GOP wins in 2016. Lets say the GOP wins the House and Senate next year, then the White House in 2016.

But, a state like Florida, or lets say, New Hampshire, wants to break off from the union. Lets use Florida.

Florida puts it to a statewide vote, and 95% vote to break away from the United States. The state says they don't like federal laws, and they want their right to be FREE.....just like the Founding Fathers.

If they did that, and declared independence, and started printing their own money, and put up walls on the Florida/GA/AL border, and armed it with a state military that they formed.....would you in power order the Federal government to crack down on that state? Or, allow them to break off and gain the freedom they want?

Your answer matters a lot, as it shows a macro version of your thoughts towards a people's right to freedom.

Let them go.

 

[iMac]

The rest of the states would have to agree with them seceding. If they did, then fine. If not, then no. When the agreed to honor, sustain and obey the Constitution it created a social covenant between us all. Social covenants can only be dissolved when all agree to it or through violence.

"They" agreed?

Unless you are a vampire who was born in the 18th Century you could not possibly have been alive when the union began and neither was anyone else.

 

[Politico]

No one would. Leftytoon fail.,

 

[bripat9643]

The rest of the states would have to agree with them seceding. If they did, then fine. If not, then no. When the agreed to honor, sustain and obey the Constitution it created a social covenant between us all. Social covenants can only be dissolved when all agree to it or through violence.

Screw that. No one living in Florida ever agreed to this "social covenant." Furthermore, there's nothing in the Constitution that disallows secession. There's no legal or social reason whey a state shouldn't be able to seceded. States should be allowed to leave whenever they like, just as the constituent parts of the Soviet Union left when they had the option of doing so. IT took a bloody war, but the constituent states of the former Yugoslavia also left. No one would argue they should have been forced to remain.

 

[SFC Ollie]

California would have my blessing if the majority of their citizens wanted to allow Mexico to take control of it and split from the rest of us. It would suck, but times have changed and many places aren't happy to be part of the good ole USA. Some prefer socialism and they don't want to move to the existing socialist countries, so I suppose they have a right to create their own. I wouldn't hesitate to move to a state willing to secede from the union if this country turned socialist or communist. Bad enough we have idiot commies who live to ***** about the free market, but I would never live under their rule.

We offered California to Mexico.

They declined when they found out they had to take Pelosi and Boxer with it.....