Do states have the right of secession?

[AlamoBuck]

Secession is legal. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Paris of 1783 declare the states to be independent nations, not just one independent nation. In adopting the Constitution, they delegated certain powers to the United States, but according to the 10th Amendment, they retain all powers not specifically forbidden to them. They never gave up their right to secede, a right they used in 1776 to create the US in the first place. Without the right to secede, USA doesn't exist.

[mithfin1]

Every July 4th we celebrate secession from the Union of Great Britain in 1776. Why would secession from the Union of the United States be any different? Read the Declaration of Independence. If the same conditions apply as they did then, then secession is a very viable option, perhaps the only option to a failed Federal experiment.

[KayBeeEee1983]

The seceding states knew that it wasn't constitutional, which is why they didn't go to the Supreme Court even though it, theoretically, could have prevented the civil war.

Only South Carolina mentioned the 10th amendment in its Ordinance of Secession.

Even the CSA Constitution stated that their new government was "a permanent federal government".

So, if the vast majority of confederate states didn't believe they had a right of unilateral secession, I don't believe we have that right either.

[gvsfgdf]

UNITED WE STAND!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK ALL SECESSIONISTS

[chairde]

All this was decided over 100 years ago by the Civil War.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde All that was decided in that war is that a large industrial nation can defeat and subdue a smaller agrarian nation in a protracted war. The war had nothing to do with the legality of secession, and the war should never have happened. America is based on the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution, not on using war to force others to bow to the president's will.

[chairde]

@AlamoBuck The Civil War was a major watershed for our country. Prior to the Civil War the term United States was used in the plural ie, "The United States are...." . After the Civil War the term changed to "The United States is.....". The Civil War addressed forever the question of slavery and states rights. The Southern accent only came about after the Civil War. The Civil War changed the USA and impacted upon our history like no other event. There is no turning back and nobody will secede.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde I would like to address these points.

First, the idea that the war settled anything. All it settled was the question of whether a large industrial nation can defeat a smaller agrarian nation in a protracted war. Second, your claim that "The Southern accent only came about after the Civil War" is a popular misconception these days. If it were true it would mean nothing, but it isn't true. There are many ante-bellum documents describing the differences in northern and Southern speech.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde Now my next point is that in America, the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution are the basis of our system. We don't decide thorny issues by taking up arms against each other and committing genocide and other atrocities and then declaring, "That settles it!" Secession is perfectly legal and I can prove it.

[chairde]

@AlamoBuck Pure nonsense. It is called treason and nothing less. There is no middle ground here. You are loyal to the USA or you are not loyal. The Civil War settled this nonsense a long time ago. Just because a few wackos in Texas like to talk treason doesn't mean that it is legal. Don't fool yourself for one second believing that the rest of the USA would quietly sit by when a state tries to leave the union. We all know what would happen and it wouldn't be pretty.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde That's so dumb! I suppose it's also treason to vote against an incumbent president? It's treason to buy French wine? You have no idea what treason is. Treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is NOT the exercise of the right of a sovereign state to determine its own destiny. That, my friend, is a little thing some of us know as "liberty," which you liberals understand nothing about.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde You tell me which is treason: to give allegiance to a regime that has pissed on the Constitution, trampled American liberties, and enslaved our population with a burden of debt that can never be repaid; or, to peacefully withdraw from the regime, and establish a new government that will honor the Constitution, restore liberty, and protect the rights of the people? Thomas Jefferson said it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government when the need arises. Treason???

[chairde]

@AlamoBuck You don't give allegiance to a regime you give allegiance to our country. If you do not like who is in office then simply vote someone else into office. We have a supreme court that can rule on any law that is unconstitutional. That is the purpose of the check and balances of our system. Treason is leaving the union. That is just not acceptable by any standard and that was the reason for the Civil War.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde Voting doesn't effect any real changes. If you haven't figured that out by now, I'd like to know what you're smoking. The Supreme Court has distorted the power of interpretation to assume unlimited power and to rule through judicial legislation, which it was never intended to do. The system is broken.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde It doesn't surprise me that you are ignorant of the Constitution. But here's a little education for you: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." From the US Constitution. Notice, it nowhere defines treason as "leaving the union," since, according to the Declaration of Independence, that is our sovereign right.

[chairde]

@AlamoBuck The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde Now I understand--you don't care about the facts, you are an imperialist that wants to believe that secession is unconstitutional so you can use that as an excuse to preserve an imperial grip on states (or, as you consider them, subject provinces). A state is a sovereign entity, and is free to determine its own destiny--in or out of any union it chooses. The Declaration of Independence states this. Is it treason to practice what the Declaration says is an inalienable right?

[chairde]

@AlamoBuck Personal attacks will not further your position. Take my advice and seek the help of a lawyer on these issues before you find yourself boxed into a corner with sedition charges. There is a former movie action star who thought that he didn't have to pay taxes based on an amatuer reading of the law. He is now in jail. Amatuer readings of the law and ignoring history like the Civil War is a formula for trouble. Also realistically Texas could not survive on its own.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde I've been in the secession business a long time. Believe me, there are no sedition charges, and there are legal political parties dedicated to secession (such as the Southern Party of Georgia and the Alaskan Independence Party) and other organizations who, like me, are outspoken about their goal of secession. An independent Texas would not only survive, but thrive, as they are self-sufficient and have basically been subsidizing the rest of the US.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde So perhaps, before you make hollow threats to me about "sedition" out of your ignorance, you should investigate such groups as the Texas Nationalist Movement, the League of the South, and the Second Vermont Republic (to name just a few), who all openly advocate secession. There is nothing illegal about these movements, and no charges or other legal action have been taken by the government to try to suppress them.

[chairde]

@AlamoBuck Listen you need professional help. Not just professional legal help but you should see a psychologist because you are barely in touch with reality. No one made any threats to you. I gave you an example of a person who refused to pay taxes based upon silly misinformed legal arguements. You are in a similar situation, although thus far you have merely talked trash and not actually achieved anything. We all know that no state is going to secede from the union. It is a silly notion.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde We all know that no state is going to secede? Really??? That's very interesting! In 1770, we all knew that the British colonies on the east coast would never secede from the British Empire. In 1890, we all knew Ireland could never be independent. In 1980, we all knew that the republics of the Soviet Union would forever be enslaved to Russia. Sorry Bub, but secession is a fact of life. What we all know could never happen, is always just a few years away from being reality.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde And I'll tell you something else. If Texas seceded today, it would have the world's 12th largest economy. But that's just the start. After ridding itself of destructive Federal overtaxation and over-regulation, it could take full advantage of its financial and other resources. Its economy would boom, and within a few years, its citizens would enjoy a standard of living far higher than what people in the US have. Neighboring states (hopefully including mine) would probably join them.

[AlamoBuck]

@chairde One more thing, then I'll shut up for now. A 2008 Zogby poll showed that 22% of Americans believe in the right to secede. That's a minority, but it is up from 12% less than a decade ago. Additionally, 18% said they would support secession in their own state, and another 10% were not opposed to the idea. That's 28% (nearly one-third), and I'm looking forward to seeing that upward trend continue in future polling. Secession is gaining support, and will likely be mainstream in 1-2 decades.

[DrKorn5]

This is from Virginia's ratification charter of the US Constitution "n the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will"

Nothing implied there it flat out says they can if they wish.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@DrKorn5 That passage just establishes popular sovereignty a.k.a. democracy. Virginia thought that making note of this was necessary because the only federal officials that the people had direct control over were the Representatives in the House. Senators were chosen by state legislatures, President was chosen by electors, Supreme Court Justices were chosen by the President and Senate.

"People of the United States" means the people as a whole. Whatever they decide to do, they must move as one.

[Lordbaldur]

Yes - states have an at the very least implied right to secession.

The very declaration of Independence states that: "these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," and while this is not a binding legal document, declaring ones own argument for secession void would be highly hypocritical and against the moral principles upon which the United States was founded.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@Lordbaldur The union of the states after declaring independence from Britain is no more hypocritical than getting married after moving out of your parents' house.

[meetman3]

The courts declared Secession Not legal in the White vs, Texas case but that was "After" the fact of the civil war. It it was declared Not legal After the war..then it was legal "Before" THE WAR" So it seems that the Southern States was wrongfully attacked and therefore should gain their Independence. The Constituiton is silent on secession. It does not grant or surpress the right. So the 10th Amendment leaves it up to the states to make the call. The Union was WRONG! Down with the USA!!

[ExecutorJoe]

YES!

[Sockpuppet2012]

The first State that tries to secede, will be declared "Terrorists", and either bombed out of existance, or the Military will move in and declare "Martial Law" in that state, or in ALL States!

[jaynic2000]

When CA and TX entered the Union, they reserved their rights as a Republic for sucession at any time. TX is the only state that can fly their flag at same mast as the US flag. I believe VA and RI also reserved their rights, but not 100% on that. Dec of Ind states our rights as individuals/states to uprise at anytime when gov't becomes tyrannical. That is why the 2nd amendment was the "4th branch" of govt in checks and balances.

[rayme4raw]

Yes, all states have the right to secede, it's an inalienable right which means that the government cannot take away the people's right to choose their own government. We will see at least one state seceding from the union in the next ten years. We don't need a legal right to secede, that's crap for the big govt believers, all any state needs is the people demanding secession and I think one country willing to back them up. Britain backed the South during the Civil War.

[mindprism]

-- cannot take away the people's right to choose their own government.

Two people order food, the check comes and one person bails on the other. The restaurant wants to force the remaining person to do dishes to pay for both parties.

Can the remaining party declare war on the seceding party if the latter refuse to pay or sign a promise to pay?

How much of the debt does RI owe? Nevada?

[rayme4raw]

History always shows that all governments default on their debts. Dubai was just the first to default on $60 Billion of debt in this economic crisis and it was a calculated full on default which will start a wave of government defaults across the globe. From what I've read, a lot of US Cities will be declaring bankruptcy in 2010 to restructure their debt (default). California has already looked into what it would take for an entire state to declare bankruptcy, they've admitted this.

[MrPolysyllabic]

When it comes to a "Seceding State" shouldering its share of the national debt, it would be detirmined by that State's contribution to the National GDP, so in the case of Nevada, contributing roughly 0.88% of the nation's GDP would then assume that same percent of the debt upon secession - Nevada would need to enforce its own tax code to pay for it of course, as would any other State that chose secession. Its really fairly simple. And, yes, if Nevada refused to pay, there would be consequenses.

[MrPolysyllabic]

Consequences do not mean military force, but rather, Nevada would have to think of its trade relations with its neighboring States. Which, with the absense of Nevada's 0.88% of the national GDP, each neighboring State (and all States that aren't seceding themselves) would absorb that percentage thus making the remaining States debt share a higher percentage. California would change its sales pitch for its beef and milk to "Happy cows NEVER go to Nevada!"

[GaGirlie777]

Secession in USA needs to be done.

[MilesVitae]

Why?

[rayme4raw]

Because the Federal Government has already seceded from the American people. Do you realize that Congress has an approval rating of 11%.  This means that 90% of American don't think that Congress passes laws that they want. The Federal Govt has their own agenda and it's completely different from the agenda of the American People which is Freedom.

[Blakarden9]

We enacted legal seperation from the British Empire in order to form this nation. Like the Union about 80 years later against the Confederacy, Britain attempted to keep the bond between the crown and some of it's American colonies intact. We all know what came of that war and the American Civil War, but neither of those two seriously answer the question of secession properly. As for today's various pro-secession movements, only time can really tell if those groups' goals will be realized.

[Blakarden9]

Well, I'm not instigating any rebellion or uprising of any sort of way, but it can be seen as one of the states rights not specifically mentioned but covered by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. I know of the court case Texas v. White, but President Grant seemed to create a parodox by readmitting Texas into the Union, whereas this court case stated that Texas never left the Union. That only leaves one question in mind; which is it? As for secession as a theory, this nation is based on it.

[MilesVitae]

As regards Texas v. White, I have also heard that there is no real Constitutional grounding in the decision.