Leaving The Sacred United States Is Horrible, Citizen

[Era Might]

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.

 

Right, if it's a process carried out through legal means it could happen (we have a similar situation with Puerto Rico).

 

I guess there are two conversations here, theoretical ideas about how secession could be handled through the legal system, and the actual situation. If secession ever went to the Supreme Court I doubt, given all the precedence, it would be allowed, and the Supreme Court is the constitutionally appointed interpreter of the constitution. So secession would have to be undertaken outside of the legal system, which would undoubtedly cause a civil war. That was my only point about the Just War doctrine...I don't see how the conditions could be fulfilled (assuming one is taking that as their basis for judging the situation)...there would be no realistic hope for success for a state surrounded by the United States, and one could hardly make the claim that in a functioning democracy secession (and the consequent war) is a legitimate recourse.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

Secession is not armed resistance. It logic is still totally backwards, that ccc paragraph doesnt list the conditions you must meet before engaging in some act that someone might attack you for, it lists the conditions you must meet before you can take up arms in defense against an aggressor. if your action is a vote after which you stop enforcing federal laws or sending money or representatives or senators to dc, how have Jo. taken up arms? What act of war have ti. committed?

the end of colonialism is actually totally relevant, peacefully allowing locals to take the reigns of their own sovereignty has preceded t, so if a state voted to take such reigns then the federal govt should have to accept it.

Era, it mistake is asserting that because someone will attack u for it, it must be an act of war.

[Nihil Obstat]

Right, if it's a process carried out through legal means it could happen (we have a similar situation with Puerto Rico).

 

I guess there are two conversations here, theoretical ideas about how secession could be handled through the legal system, and the actual situation. If secession ever went to the Supreme Court I doubt, given all the precedence, it would be allowed, and the Supreme Court is the constitutionally appointed interpreter of the constitution. So secession would have to be undertaken outside of the legal system, which would undoubtedly cause a civil war. That was my only point about the Just War doctrine...I don't see how the conditions could be fulfilled (assuming one is taking that as their basis for judging the situation)...there would be no realistic hope for success for a state surrounded by the United States, and one could hardly make the claim that in a functioning democracy secession (and the consequent war) is a legitimate recourse.

But what if we set aside a legal interpretation of 'act of war', and instead talk about aggressive actions. Morally speaking, there is nothing inherently aggressive about secession. Peaceful secession. So morally speaking, if a state or province declares independence, then it is not aggressing on the rest of the country, and if federal soldiers acted to stop the secession, it is they who are guilty of the initiation of violence.

I think it is important for us to separate the legal aspects with the moral aspects. The law itself may be immoral. The law may simply be upholding a poor status quo.

[Era Might]

Secession is not armed resistance. It logic is still totally backwards, that ccc paragraph doesnt list the conditions you must meet before engaging in some act that someone might attack you for, it lists the conditions you must meet before you can take up arms in defense against an aggressor. if your action is a vote after which you stop enforcing federal laws or sending money or representatives or senators to dc, how have Jo. taken up arms? What act of war have ti. committed?

the end of colonialism is actually totally relevant, peacefully allowing locals to take the reigns of their own sovereignty has preceded t, so if a state voted to take such reigns then the federal govt should have to accept it.

 

Secession would not be an end in itself. The point would be to become an independent country, which means you are claiming the authority of a foreign government on U.S. soil. That would not go down well.

 

It would be Israel-Palestine, except it wouldn't, because a state would stand no chance against the United States military, let alone against the actual people in the state who consider themselves American.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Era Might

[Era Might]

But what if we set aside a legal interpretation of 'act of war', and instead talk about aggressive actions. Morally speaking, there is nothing inherently aggressive about secession. Peaceful secession. So morally speaking, if a state or province declares independence, then it is not aggressing on the rest of the country, and if federal soldiers acted to stop the secession, it is they who are guilty of the initiation of violence.

I think it is important for us to separate the legal aspects with the moral aspects. The law itself may be immoral. The law may simply be upholding a poor status quo.

 

The problem I have with this disembodied approach is it rarely goes all the way. So long as we're talking about abstract and ideal principles, Thoreau said it best:

 

There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

 

Even limiting this discussion to state secession is kind of artificial. If states can secede from the union, why can't individuals secede from the state, and from any other authority it wants?

 

I'm sure we could stay here all night and do our mental gymnastics about these kinds of ideal wishes, but I guess I take reality a little more seriously than I used to. The way I look at society, it develops the way it develops for reasons...not always logical, but usually based on how people actually are.

 

I guess if there were a real situation where secession was a serious possibility, and not an imaginary theoretical pipedream, we would have to entertain it...after all, what else is politics but accommodating the situation as best we can. I guess I just don't see secessionism as a serious situation.

[Aloysius]

if the federal government initiated a war under such circumstances it would be on them. The act of secession would not be initiating the war.

[Era Might]

if the federal government initiated a war under such circumstances it would be on them. The act of secession would not be initiating the war.

 

But I don't think that factors into the Just War doctrine. Merely being subject to aggression (under the just war doctrine, that is) does not mean one can take up armed resistance. All the listed factors must be met (no other recourse, real possibility of success, etc).

Edited February 1, 2013 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

Good post era, u a few pages back I dealt with y I think the states can secede with a more clear basis than counties or individuals, but going further into the pipedream abstractions there is basis for going some degree further as in it Thoreau quote which I very much like.

Era
who is taking up am ed resistance? Secession doesn't mean that. if you are attacked after severing there are considerations of whether you should engage in armed defense or not, but u act as if the act of secession is in and of itself armed resistance.

[Aloysius]

If it happened, I would hope we would all flood the congressional switch board asking them not to attack, fill up their emails, call everyone we know I. the military and demand that troops not obey orders to attack their neighbors. sometimes daydream that through the information age we might one day get to the point where pipedream ideals might materialize on occassion.

[Era Might]

If it happened, I would hope we would all flood the congressional switch board asking them not to attack, fill up their emails, call everyone we know I. the military and demand that troops not obey orders to attack their neighbors. sometimes daydream that through the information age we might one day get to the point where pipedream ideals might materialize on occassion.

 

I'm curious, completely hypothetical, but suppose in some twist of history the Southwestern states wanted to rejoin Mexico, and not be merely independent. Do you think the situation should be allowed in the same way?

[Aloysius]

If Mexico wanted them and no ones rights were being violated, sure. I'd be much more against it as I'm against centralized power, but it would be within a state legislature's authority after rescinding their ratification of the constitution, to petition to join another govt.

however they would not have the right to abolish their accountability mechanistic to the ppl, because they only obtained their authority through such voting mechanisms and would only maintain it through maintaining those mechanisms. so under the same principle I think such states should be able to then leave Mexico if a subsequent legislature decided to.

[4588686]

So would all citizens in the state that seceded remain American citizens?  

[Aloysius]

I already dealt with that, they'd have the right to claim citizenship and it'd be up to the diplomacy of the us to work with the independent state to deal with anyone who wished to maintain citizenship, congress would probably need to set some timetable after which anyone still living there was an expatriot, etc. the descents would have the right to renounce their citizenship there now that they were on foreign soil, I'd recommend the Fed establish some embassies and consulates in the area and come up with some guidelines for how to deal with the situation.

[4588686]

I already dealt with that, they'd have the right to claim citizenship and it'd be up to the diplomacy of the us to work with the independent state to deal with anyone who wished to maintain citizenship, congress would probably need to set some timetable after which anyone still living there was an expatriot, etc. the descents would have the right to renounce their citizenship there now that they were on foreign soil, I'd recommend the Fed establish some embassies and consulates in the area and come up with some guidelines for how to deal with the situation.

 

 

I guess I just don't find this convincing.  It's not relevant since there is no right to secede.  That's been settled law since the 19th century.  I think there are just innumerable problems with this idea.  Let's take a state like Oklahoma.  If Oklahoma seceded alone then I don't know in what meaningful sense it would have sovereignty.  I don't even think that it would be considered sovereign under international law (of course, would treaties that Oklahoma was bound by as part of the union be bound by treaties signed by the Union while Oklahoma was part of the union?) since the surrounding state would control all surrounding territory and have essential control over Oklahomo's airspace and access to surrounding water bodies et cetera.  

 

Are there any documents at the time discussing the process by which states can secede?  I think Jefferson made a vague statement in favor of secession.  How would states secede?  Would it need to be by a state constitutional amendment   A simple majority?  

[Aloysius]

I once had an argument with friend who said that there was no such rule in baseball that "the tie goes to the runner". I pointed out to him that the rule requires you to be tagged when not on the base, so de facto in a tie the runner is safe. same principle applies to these so called ambiguities, it really should be simple enough. absence and ambiguity in law is not a problematic defect, the absence itself defines precisely what the situation ought to be.