Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Socrates]

we done been through this before. it was bloody and really expensive.

 

 

The blood and expense could have easily been spared if Lincoln and the federal government had simply allowed South Carolina and the other Southern states secede.

 

 

But I suppose preserving the Sacred Union and the absolute power of the federal government over the states is worth more than any amount of human life.

 

 

 

Perpetual means no expiration date. That doesn't mean indissoluble.

 

The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the sovereign states. The default assumption as regards that is that anything not forbidden remains with the states or the people. Nowhere in the Constitution, which was written to enumerate the powers of the Federal government, is the power to compel a state to remain in the union.

 

I joined the Boy Scouts only with permission of the people running that crap. Doesn't mean I can't leave the Boy Scouts.

This.

[Lilllabettt]

look ... you can debate the "justice" or moral legitimacy of secession all you want. In this country (the United States) secession is illegal. You can test it and see if the law is enforced (you will find out it is.) Or you can try to change the law to make it legal (good luck.) But the reality is, it is illegal and has been for 150 years.

[Nihil Obstat]

Any discussion of whether or not something is or should be legal should first be predicated on whether or not it is moral.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Aloysius]

It's not illegal to secede any more than it's illegal to go to a wedding in Pakistan that's also being attended by some low level al quaida associates. just because the us govt goes batcrap crazy and kills you for doing something doesn't mean it's illegal.

Hasan has a financial point that the us govt might have some financial claim against a state, something that should need to be worked out diplomatically (i would suggest the independent state mint its own money and buy all its citizens' federal reserve notes and send them all back to the US treasury)

I don't recommend states doing this any more than I would recommend anyone trying to be a hero around a deranged gunman with hostages when it's clear they'll just get more ppl killed. really that's what I think of the federal government though, it's a deranged gunman killing children around the world and holding us hostage with its superior firepower.

[4588686]

look ... you can debate the "justice" or moral legitimacy of secession all you want. In this country (the United States) secession is illegal. You can test it and see if the law is enforced (you will find out it is.) Or you can try to change the law to make it legal (good luck.) But the reality is, it is illegal and has been for 150 years.

 

 

Exactly.  There is no constitutional right to secession.  Right.  According to the US government.  In the US legal system you have no legal right that the legal system does not grant you.  Should that be the case?  Maybe, maybe not.  But that is what is.  Maybe anarcho-capitalism is the right system.  Maybe states should have a right to secede.  I think that people ought to have a constitutional right to access to necessary health care.  I think that there is a very strong moral and economic case for a single payer health care system.  Maybe if the framers had been wiser they would have made a secession clause.  Maybe maybe maybe.  But there isn't.  The courts have decided on this issue.  Maybe they'll overturn it.  Go convince a state government to vote for secession and then argue your case in the courts and maybe you'll get the right to secede.  Good look.  But right now that right does not exist.  Maybe it will tomorrow.  But today it doesn't.  

[4588686]

The blood and expense could have easily been spared if Lincoln and the federal government had simply allowed South Carolina and the other Southern states secede.

I know.  Good white Christian men just wanted their slaves and were worried that the federal government was going to infringe on that right.  A clear example of statism and the degradation of liberty if there ever was one.  The same perceptive logic that led the babbling twit brilliant statesman Ron Paul to declare that the Civil Rights act did not expand human liberty.  He was right, of course.  If you are concerned with the traditional interests of American Libertarianism, the rich and the powerful.  The Civil Rights Acts were a sever infringement on the rights and abilities of the powerful the keep their black populations in severely oppressed conditions.  

 

 

But I suppose preserving the Sacred Union and the absolute power of the federal government over the states is worth more than any amount of human life.

 

That's a very astute point.  Assuming, of course, that white lives are much more valuable than black lives.  

[Lilllabettt]

Any discussion of whether or not something is or should be legal should first be predicated on whether or not it is moral.

 

be sure you tell that to your lawyer.

[4588686]

Hasan has a financial point that the us govt might have some financial claim against a state, something that should need to be worked out diplomatically (i would suggest the independent state mint its own money and buy all its citizens' federal reserve notes and send them all back to the US treasury)
 

 

Nowhere does the constitution say that the federal government has any such financial claims.

[Era Might]

Any discussion of whether or not something is or should be legal should first be predicated on whether or not it is moral.

 

If one is taking the Just War doctrine as their starting point, would be pretty hard to justify secession in the United States IMO.

 

 

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition"

 

Any act of secession would be ipso facto an act of war.

[Aloysius]

No it wouldn't, that's absurd and totally backwards. Secession is not an act of war any more than, to continue my analogy, walking out the back door orca place you're being held hostage in is an act of violence against the guy holding you hostage. of the Fed attacked a state that seceded, the Fed would be the aggressor there.

the financial claim would not be clear, it'd be a basic matter of contracts and loans and such.

The constitution doesn't enumerate the rights of states or individuals, that's why there is a 9th and 10th amendment to make that clear. it only lists what powers the states have authorized the federal govt to do on their behalf. If state legislatures have the authority to ratify the constitution, then they also have the authority to rescind its ratification, at which point the constitution and the supreme court precedent and all of that would be moot within that state. if the federal movements attacks a state after that, they are being aggressors.

If something like slavery existed in the seceded state it would add an entirely different dimension to whether the Fed. could morally attack th seceded state, as I said before the Fed govt still has some responsibility to any us citizen suddenly residing in an independent state, to defend that person's inalienable rights. the whole historical debate about the civil war is irrelevant maybe the norths motivations weren't right or they could've done it peacefully, but if a state seceded and started violating ppls rights then the federal govt would have a responsibility to deal with that.

[Era Might]

No it wouldn't, that's absurd and totally backwards. Secession is not an act of war any more than, to continue my analogy, walking out the back door orca place you're being held hostage in is an act of violence against the guy holding you hostage. of the Fed attacked a state that seceded, the Fed would be the aggressor there.

 

 

Doesn't matter who's the aggressor...the Just War doctrine is about the legitimacy of armed resistance (it assumes injustice, actually). Secession would most certainly be an act of war...no nation on earth just cedes its territory.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

be sure you tell that to your lawyer.

I do not recall saying that the world actually worked the way it should. That in fact would be rather surprising.

[Nihil Obstat]

Doesn't matter who's the aggressor...the Just War doctrine is about the legitimacy of armed resistance (it assumes injustice, actually). Secession would most certainly be an act of war...no nation on earth just cedes its territory.

I would direct your attention to the British North America Acts, and the Canada Act. Combined, those acts made Canada essentially independent of Britain where before it was several British colonies. Better still, nobody got shot.

[Era Might]

I would direct your attention to the British North America Acts, and the Canada Act. Combined, those acts made Canada essentially independent of Britain where before it was several British colonies. Better still, nobody got shot.

 

Different situation, as these are colonies (colonialism fell all around the world, rarely peacefully). I'm not familiar with Canadian history, but what would Canada do if a province decided not to be part of Canada anymore?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

Different situation, as these are colonies (colonialism fell all around the world). I'm not familiar with Canadian history, but what would Canada do if a province decided not to be part of Canada anymore?

Quebec has had referanda on it in the past over separating. The last one was defeated in the 90s by something like a 0.6% margin. It is not really clear if there will be future referenda, and what will happen if one passes. Nobody really knows.

One of my professors remarked once that on paper Canada should not work at all. If I am not mistaken, Quebec never even ratified the Constitution. But in practice it does work. Weird.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Nihil Obstat