There's that secession crap again

[Jon]

It's treason.

Things happened back in 1776 that was considered treason do you think what the founders did was wrong?

Demanding elected representation is a legitimate reason to become a traitor against a repressive monarch. On the flip side, when every citizen enjoys the benefits of full representation and you try to secede you're attempting to destroy both democracy and the constitutional rights of the citizens in your state. That's not justifiable.

"Full representation" was a joke, right?

And why is it up to you to decide what acts of treason are justifiable and what are not? If the people of a state collectively decide that they are no longer interested in belonging to the United States, they have that right. If their ideals are so far outside the ideals of the rest of the country, they should not be forced to participate.

That's the current problem with the US right now: we have too many groups wanting to do too many things differently. We are TOO big and TOO different to operate under a single government. That's why certain powers are supposed to rest with the states, because states are more representative of the people who live in them. We would function much better if the United States was dissolved, smaller governments were formed in different regions, and we all functioned together economically and militarily. It works well for the European Union.

The truth is: what is good for California is not good for Texas, and neither should be forced to accept the ideals of the other. But that doesn't mean they can't work together, either.

 

[rightwinger]

Things happened back in 1776 that was considered treason do you think what the founders did was wrong?

Demanding elected representation is a legitimate reason to become a traitor against a repressive monarch. On the flip side, when every citizen enjoys the benefits of full representation and you try to secede you're attempting to destroy both democracy and the constitutional rights of the citizens in your state. That's not justifiable.

"Full representation" was a joke, right?

And why is it up to you to decide what acts of treason are justifiable and what are not? If the people of a state collectively decide that they are no longer interested in belonging to the United States, they have that right. If their ideals are so far outside the ideals of the rest of the country, they should not be forced to participate.

That's the current problem with the US right now: we have too many groups wanting to do too many things differently. We are TOO big and TOO different to operate under a single government. That's why certain powers are supposed to rest with the states, because states are more representative of the people who live in them. We would function much better if the United States was dissolved, smaller governments were formed in different regions, and we all functioned together economically and militarily. It works well for the European Union.

The truth is: what is good for California is not good for Texas, and neither should be forced to accept the ideals of the other. But that doesn't mean they can't work together, either.

Can you show where States have a right to secede?

Must be written somewhere

 

[Jon]

Demanding elected representation is a legitimate reason to become a traitor against a repressive monarch. On the flip side, when every citizen enjoys the benefits of full representation and you try to secede you're attempting to destroy both democracy and the constitutional rights of the citizens in your state. That's not justifiable.

"Full representation" was a joke, right?

And why is it up to you to decide what acts of treason are justifiable and what are not? If the people of a state collectively decide that they are no longer interested in belonging to the United States, they have that right. If their ideals are so far outside the ideals of the rest of the country, they should not be forced to participate.

That's the current problem with the US right now: we have too many groups wanting to do too many things differently. We are TOO big and TOO different to operate under a single government. That's why certain powers are supposed to rest with the states, because states are more representative of the people who live in them. We would function much better if the United States was dissolved, smaller governments were formed in different regions, and we all functioned together economically and militarily. It works well for the European Union.

The truth is: what is good for California is not good for Texas, and neither should be forced to accept the ideals of the other. But that doesn't mean they can't work together, either.

Can you show where States have a right to secede?

Must be written somewhere

Can you show where States do not have a right to secede?

Must be written somewhere.

 

[Mr Natural]

I'm certain my brother thinks I should change many things about myself. He's probably right about most of them, and I'm always looking for ways to bring about those changes.

Why do you project emotion onto the President?

Why do you claim that Obama thinks he's perfect?

WHY? Why is he trying to impose things upon me that I will never submit to?

Please share what things exactly has Obama "imposed" on you? What, exactly, will you never submit to?

Ya know, that stuff. That stuff he does.

 

[Againsheila]

Pretty loony, and no one should condone secession.

I disagree, I don't think there's anything more American than seceding from a government that isn't representing you as you wish. Truth is, over the years, we've forgotten what's it's like to be true Americans.

 

[Againsheila]

Demanding elected representation is a legitimate reason to become a traitor against a repressive monarch. On the flip side, when every citizen enjoys the benefits of full representation and you try to secede you're attempting to destroy both democracy and the constitutional rights of the citizens in your state. That's not justifiable.

"Full representation" was a joke, right?

And why is it up to you to decide what acts of treason are justifiable and what are not? If the people of a state collectively decide that they are no longer interested in belonging to the United States, they have that right. If their ideals are so far outside the ideals of the rest of the country, they should not be forced to participate.

That's the current problem with the US right now: we have too many groups wanting to do too many things differently. We are TOO big and TOO different to operate under a single government. That's why certain powers are supposed to rest with the states, because states are more representative of the people who live in them. We would function much better if the United States was dissolved, smaller governments were formed in different regions, and we all functioned together economically and militarily. It works well for the European Union.

The truth is: what is good for California is not good for Texas, and neither should be forced to accept the ideals of the other. But that doesn't mean they can't work together, either.

Can you show where States have a right to secede?

Must be written somewhere

Yeah, it's called the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Papageorgio]

So some on the right believe secession is the answer. How is this any different than those on the left that wanted to move to another country when Bush was in charge?

Both are fixes to the immediate problem, long term...not so sure.

 

[konradv]

It is not unexpected

Southern states always threaten secession whenever it appears black Americans are gaining more power

They did it in the Civil War, they did it during Civil Rights and now they are doing it when we have a black President

I'm sure it is just an odd coincidence when they choose to exercise States Rights

They're all for States' Rights, except when they don't agree with the outcome. Weren't they all up in arms because the FSSC allowed the state to determine its own way to make sure the vote count was accurate in '00? HYPOCRITES!!!

 

[rightwinger]

"Full representation" was a joke, right?

And why is it up to you to decide what acts of treason are justifiable and what are not? If the people of a state collectively decide that they are no longer interested in belonging to the United States, they have that right. If their ideals are so far outside the ideals of the rest of the country, they should not be forced to participate.

That's the current problem with the US right now: we have too many groups wanting to do too many things differently. We are TOO big and TOO different to operate under a single government. That's why certain powers are supposed to rest with the states, because states are more representative of the people who live in them. We would function much better if the United States was dissolved, smaller governments were formed in different regions, and we all functioned together economically and militarily. It works well for the European Union.

The truth is: what is good for California is not good for Texas, and neither should be forced to accept the ideals of the other. But that doesn't mean they can't work together, either.

Can you show where States have a right to secede?

Must be written somewhere

Can you show where States do not have a right to secede?

Must be written somewhere.

They signed the Constitution, their citizens are citizens of the United States not their individual state

 

[rightwinger]

WHY? Why is he trying to impose things upon me that I will never submit to?

Please share what things exactly has Obama "imposed" on you? What, exactly, will you never submit to?

Ya know, that stuff. That stuff he does.

You have to understand...anything a Democrat does is automatically unconstitutional. The whole act of voting Republicans out of power was socialism in action

 

[slackjawed]

The last time secession was tried in this country, it failed. Since the victor writes history, it has come down to this generation as a prohibited action. A major objective in the effort in declaring secession 'illegal' is to preclude another attempt at the same thing.
Even the postings of reletivley insignificant individuals participating on an anonyomous internet message board can be seen as either current attempts to prevent people from considering secession, or as the results of almost 150 years of "re-education".
While the act of secession is not clearly defined in the US constitution as 'legal' or 'illegal', since it threatens the existence of the government I would opine that the government would define it as 'illegal'.
My opinion is that secession by one or more states in our time would be devastating to the present federal government. Even short of a "confederate" victory, the cost of the entire country being under martial law would stress the system to the point of collapse. I can see where even a failed attempt at secession could cause the failure of the current government.
Then there is that pesky death toll that would likely be associated with secession, as it was last time. Last time we lost a big percentage of a generation of young men. Not good, and it wouldn't be any better in modern times. It would likely be worse due to technological advances.

The entity that was victorious in a potential secession conflict would be the entity that survived. The survivors would be the ones that would write the history of such a conflict, as it has always been. The defeated entity would either not be around to argue the validity of that history, or would be diminished to such a degree as to be ineffective, as it has always been.

 

[Big Fitz]

they dont seem to love this country very much

If you fuckers love it so GOD DAMNED much, then why the hell are you all trying to CHANGE it ?

Every congress and executive this country has ever had has "changed" it.

"Change" isn't by definition a bad thing. I love my brother, but there are many things that he should "change" about himself.

The difference here is I love this country like an adult. I recognize it's not perfect, and I'll do everything in my power to make it better.

But this is creepy "Single White Female/Vertigo" kinds of change, where you love another nation's policies mostly except you love the benefits of this one you know you can't get there... so you try to make this nation more like the one you really love without destroying the perks you've come to enjoy and don't realize they are the fruit of what you hate in this nation.

Kinda like you date a girl for her money, power, influence intangibles... but you lust secretly after another... so you ask her to cut her hair a certain way... then dress a certain way, then live a certain way, and slowly transform her into this other woman... but it's not her. But you don't care cause you want both worlds, and don't realize that the changes you make will drive her from the world she gains all these wonderful intangibles from just to satisfy your perverse tastes.

Ultimately it won't matter because you don't really want the one you're with you just want to avoid the negatives of the one you really love who is dirt poor and bitchy or crazy as hell and prone to violence... but she's HOT and you want all the stuff you think is hot except the crazy violent bitchy poor qualities.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, to continue the analogy, we love our nation as it was... unmolested and dragged down and made into that poor crazy violent bitch that you lust after. No she's not perfect, but you don't go around trying to change her fundamentally. You learn to love what makes her imperfect as well and if a minor change can be done to improve or smooth over a rough edge, you do that. You don't demand she changes fundamentally how she acts or lives or looks.

That's what I see when I hear liberals talk about 'improving' this nation. It's a code word for 'make like what we really want', but can't be honest enough with ourselves to emigrate. There are dozens of nations you admire more. Go... leave, be happier there with Sweden or Switzerland or Argentina or Venezuela. There is only one America, and she is unique in the world, and doesn't need to be dragged down and made common like every other quasi socialist mess out there. We can find more than enough immigrants who will love America like we do to replace your vacancy.

 

[Againsheila]

The last time secession was tried in this country, it failed. Since the victor writes history, it has come down to this generation as a prohibited action. A major objective in the effort in declaring secession 'illegal' is to preclude another attempt at the same thing.
Even the postings of reletivley insignificant individuals participating on an anonyomous internet message board can be seen as either current attempts to prevent people from considering secession, or as the results of almost 150 years of "re-education".
While the act of secession is not clearly defined in the US constitution as 'legal' or 'illegal', since it threatens the existence of the government I would opine that the government would define it as 'illegal'.
My opinion is that secession by one or more states in our time would be devastating to the present federal government. Even short of a "confederate" victory, the cost of the entire country being under martial law would stress the system to the point of collapse. I can see where even a failed attempt at secession could cause the failure of the current government.
Then there is that pesky death toll that would likely be associated with secession, as it was last time. Last time we lost a big percentage of a generation of young men. Not good, and it wouldn't be any better in modern times. It would likely be worse due to technological advances.

The entity that was victorious in a potential secession conflict would be the entity that survived. The survivors would be the ones that would write the history of such a conflict, as it has always been. The defeated entity would either not be around to argue the validity of that history, or would be diminished to such a degree as to be ineffective, as it has always been.

At this point, America is already near collapse. I don't think one state leaving is going to make a difference either way. In fact, I suspect in the next 10 years, America will cease to exist and will end up being at least 3 separate countries.

 

[Againsheila]

If you fuckers love it so GOD DAMNED much, then why the hell are you all trying to CHANGE it ?

Every congress and executive this country has ever had has "changed" it.

"Change" isn't by definition a bad thing. I love my brother, but there are many things that he should "change" about himself.

The difference here is I love this country like an adult. I recognize it's not perfect, and I'll do everything in my power to make it better.

But this is creepy "Single White Female/Vertigo" kinds of change, where you love another nation's policies mostly except you love the benefits of this one you know you can't get there... so you try to make this nation more like the one you really love without destroying the perks you've come to enjoy and don't realize they are the fruit of what you hate in this nation.

Kinda like you date a girl for her money, power, influence intangibles... but you lust secretly after another... so you ask her to cut her hair a certain way... then dress a certain way, then live a certain way, and slowly transform her into this other woman... but it's not her. But you don't care cause you want both worlds, and don't realize that the changes you make will drive her from the world she gains all these wonderful intangibles from just to satisfy your perverse tastes.

Ultimately it won't matter because you don't really want the one you're with you just want to avoid the negatives of the one you really love who is dirt poor and bitchy or crazy as hell and prone to violence... but she's HOT and you want all the stuff you think is hot except the crazy violent bitchy poor qualities.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, to continue the analogy, we love our nation as it was... unmolested and dragged down and made into that poor crazy violent bitch that you lust after. No she's not perfect, but you don't go around trying to change her fundamentally. You learn to love what makes her imperfect as well and if a minor change can be done to improve or smooth over a rough edge, you do that. You don't demand she changes fundamentally how she acts or lives or looks.

That's what I see when I hear liberals talk about 'improving' this nation. It's a code word for 'make like what we really want', but can't be honest enough with ourselves to emigrate. There are dozens of nations you admire more. Go... leave, be happier there with Sweden or Switzerland or Argentina or Venezuela. There is only one America, and she is unique in the world, and doesn't need to be dragged down and made common like every other quasi socialist mess out there. We can find more than enough immigrants who will love America like we do to replace your vacancy.

No other country will take us. We tried. My husband was laid off for 3 years. Japan won't take us, Canada won't even take us. We are too old for Australia and we don't have doctorates for New Zealand. In fact, ours is the only country in the world that allows low and unskilled laborers in to compete with their own citizens.

There is nothing more American than abandoning a government that refuses to represent you and instituting a new one that will represent you.

 

[zzzz]

As to the constitutionality of succession, the United States Supreme court in Texas-v-White ruled that unilateral succession is unconstitutional. Texas could not succeed from the Union and Texas was an independent state before becoming a part of the United States, a status that many other states have no claim to. Most states were American territories that became states with the exception of Texas and the 13 original colonies. But the court did say that a state could succeed if it was by mutual consent (whatever that means) or by revolution. So a state cannot just up and quit the Union constitutionally but can leave the Union by mutual consent.

 

[Jon]

They signed the Constitution, their citizens are citizens of the United States not their individual state

If I no longer want to be a citizen, I can move to another country. That's not illegal. Why would it be illegal for me to declare that I am a citizen of Arkansas and not the United States if, for instance, Arkansas were to secede?

But I like how you are focusing on this part of my post and ignoring the big picture I was presenting. We, as a society, would function better under several smaller governments than a single government. You want to force the conservatives to live under your ideals, they want to force you to live under their ideals. Why can't we let the ideals rules in the areas where they are predominant, and people can choose to live wherever they find their ideals best matched?

 

[Avatar4321]

Only to have them replaced with someone new who does exactly the same crap.

We are not represented. They may have been elected but they do not represent anyone but their own interest

If you're dissatisfied with your choices in elections, then run for something yourself.

I plan to. But unfortunately there are age requirements on certain offices.

 

[Jon]

As to the constitutionality of succession, the United States Supreme court in Texas-v-White ruled that unilateral succession is unconstitutional.

1. They did no such thing. They ruled that it was not explicitly allowed under the Constitution.

2. The notion that it is unconstitutional is irrelevant. If a state rules that they do not want to be a part of the United States, they are also agreeing that they do not want to be bound by the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

They signed the Constitution, their citizens are citizens of the United States not their individual state

This is, of course, absolutely wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

They signed the Constitution, their citizens are citizens of the United States not their individual state

If I no longer want to be a citizen, I can move to another country. That's not illegal. Why would it be illegal for me to declare that I am a citizen of Arkansas and not the United States if, for instance, Arkansas were to secede?

But I like how you are focusing on this part of my post and ignoring the big picture I was presenting. We, as a society, would function better under several smaller governments than a single government. You want to force the conservatives to live under your ideals, they want to force you to live under their ideals. Why can't we let the ideals rules in the areas where they are predominant, and people can choose to live wherever they find their ideals best matched?

Because, like other lefties, RW is a control freak.