Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you not understand that any state that would choose to secede would be choosing to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution?
Also, the Constitution itself does not forbid (or even mention) secession. The prohibition on secession was created by Chief Justice Chase in his majority opinion in Texas v. White.
And it was finalized with a bloody, 4 year war. There is no *legal* way for a state to secede from the USA at this point in history, regardless of what arm-chair constitutionalists think. The closest thing is Texas, who's constitution specifically says it can split itself into 5 states (which would give them more power in the Senate). But that doesn't let them legally leave the union.
Beyond that, any state that left would give up any benefits they have by being part of the US. For all the poor states (most of the ones who might want to secede) that means loosing net income from the feds. But even beyond that (and beyond the political side of it): They'd have to set up their own highway funding, school funding, embassies, new trade relations (with the USA and the rest of the world), new border protection and customs offices, etc.
With Scotland (the OP's example), at least Scotland and England are roughly the same size/population/etc, and Scotland would likely have joined up with the EU separately once they left the UK. They also have their own industry and all kinds of other things left over from being a nation for so long. Only Texas (or CA, but they wouldn't want to leave) *might* have enough economic power to survive outside the US, but it'd still be a stretch long term, as the US govt would immediately blacklist them economically.
But beyond all that, you even say it: "choosing to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution"... States simply do not have that choice.
What if? With the confederate flag furore raging the question might bring some interesting views.As a brit i feel i am not qualified to comment on the debate but interested to hear american citizens views.
Great question!
No. The South should not be allowed to secede. But I am of the very strong belief that The Civil War did not need to happen. Proper leadership and restraint would have allowed the old south to secede; Historical events and time would have reunited the two countries.
But there ain't no way in Hell we're going back to being British!
And it was finalized with a bloody, 4 year war. There is no *legal* way for a state to secede from the USA at this point in history, regardless of what arm-chair constitutionalists think. The closest thing is Texas, who's constitution specifically says it can split itself into 5 states (which would give them more power in the Senate). But that doesn't let them legally leave the union.
Beyond that, any state that left would give up any benefits they have by being part of the US. For all the poor states (most of the ones who might want to secede) that means loosing net income from the feds. But even beyond that (and beyond the political side of it): They'd have to set up their own highway funding, school funding, embassies, new trade relations (with the USA and the rest of the world), new border protection and customs offices, etc.
With Scotland (the OP's example), at least Scotland and England are roughly the same size/population/etc, and Scotland would likely have joined up with the EU separately once they left the UK. They also have their own industry and all kinds of other things left over from being a nation for so long. Only Texas (or CA, but they wouldn't want to leave) *might* have enough economic power to survive outside the US, but it'd still be a stretch long term, as the US govt would immediately blacklist them economically.
But beyond all that, you even say it: "choosing to remove itself from the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution"... States simply do not have that choice.
Not quite! Scotland is 5 million, England is 53 million and a much larger land area.
Washington wouldn't allow it in my opinion. If anything, the elites desire for more power/control/influence/numbers - would lead them to annexing Mexico and Canada. They have a few candidates that would be friendly to that idea. Cruz....Bush....to name a couple.
Most people in the South wouldn't support it. It's been clear that only a tiny percentage of southerners fit the "We need to secede!" bill, and they're dying off along with the KKK. Most people down here just don't care, none of my friends cared when the Confederate Flag was taken down in South Carolina. Don't give me that BS "Well, Raleigh just isn't very southern" either. The days of the Confederacy and Jim Crow are long gone.
Also, the Constitution itself does not forbid (or even mention) secession. The prohibition on secession was created by Chief Justice Chase in his majority opinion in Texas v. White.
Interesting.
Could you cite for us those constitutions, either now or in the past, that explicitly allow secession?
What if? With the confederate flag furore raging the question might bring some interesting views.As a brit i feel i am not qualified to comment on the debate but interested to hear american citizens views.
I notice with satisfaction that you did not say 'the North' but 'the rest of America.' I am a Westerner who does not much identify with either half of the East. Nothing against them, just feel like we live in different worlds. I do not understand either of theirs very well, and I have evidence many of them understand mine poorly, to the extent that they even notice it. I have heard the term 'flyover state' once too often, just as your typical Southerner has had his or her diet, hobbies, and accent mocked often enough to get sick of it. There are a lot of good minds in the South. If they ever want to go, we should let them. They might well come up with better solutions than anything we might impose on them--and if they didn't, it would not be our problem any more.
We are deeply divided as a people, though the dividing line doesn't run strictly on north/south lines, of course. If the South wanted to secede, I would say do what we should have done in 1861 and just let it go without violence. The rest of the country could then knuckle down to its own issues, and let the seceded states handle their issues without money, lectures, or trouble from the rest of it. I would be absolutely opposed to preventing them by force of arms, provided they take with them their share of the national debt, of course. I don't want them killed or despoiled in war, and I don't want them killing or despoiling us.
Freed of the largest theocratic streak, we could achieve actual separation of church and state in the North and West. I might feel a sense of national welcome (instead of national grudging tolerance, provided I don't mistake it for equality and start acting up). And diminished in size, we'd have a good reason to start declining to take responsibility for problems elsewhere in the world that really need be none of our concern. We increasingly seem to think that most problems overseas can be solved by aerial bombardment, even when outcomes prove this does not work. The world has objected to us as a world policeman, and justly so; let's let China show us how we should have done it. Or India, as it burgeons into a great power. Or the EU. And with less economic and military muscle, we might actually learn the art of compromise and diplomacy, especially with the rest of the countries in the Americas, who might find it refreshing to be talked to like peer nations rather than subordinates.
I think all the difficulty about taking down the Confederate Flag, exposes the lie made here by the many southern posters that few in the south want to secede. If that were true, those southerners would have expressed their political power and had the flag down years ago. That they didn't is the truth.
Ok, I'm playing devil's advocate and exaggerating, but not my much. Southerners want to have their cake and eat it. No exagg.
What if? With the confederate flag furore raging the question might bring some interesting views.As a brit i feel i am not qualified to comment on the debate but interested to hear american citizens views.
I'm from the south and still live here, but I absolutely hate it lately. I'd let them secede and move the hell out. We don't move now because my husband's parents are still here and in their 80s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But there ain't no way in Hell we're going back to being British!