Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S.

[Camikaze]

If the Union abolished the seperate parts, why was the word State used? At that time, it meant a soveriegn entity.

The word state was used directly after the word united, to indicate that the former sovereign entities had been united, and superseded by the new, wholistic and singular entity.

There wasn't widespread agreement on whether the Constitution allowed secession, but it got settled in a very convincing and clear manner in the 1860s. That pretty much ended the argument, although we could argue whether for right or wrong until the end of time.

Okay, I'll take that.

 

[Snorrius]

Wherer US constitution stops state from seceding, I doubt it will be the thing which will stop this process, US army can try to this if it will have to.

 

[Sharwood]

Wherer US constitution stops state from seceding, I doubt it will be the thing which will stop this process, US army can try to this if it will have to.

I too doubt that the US Constitution will stop this from happening. The sheer irrationality and laughability of this suggestion is what will stop it from happening.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The USA is a union, not a confederacy. A union is permanent, a confederacy is not.

Using the constitution as evidence that secession is allowable is paradoxical. It is stated that the constitution is 'for the United States of America'. If you are seceding, then it is no longer the United States that you are seceding from.

The style The United States of America was established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation. The notion that the name itself implies it isn't a confederacy is not correct.

I just noticed that The Articles of Confederation are oficially called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and that Article XIII explicitly states that the union shall be perpetual. This strengthens the case that the states do not have the right to withdraw from the Union, but it conflicts with your distinction between a Union and Confederacy.


The constitution does not explicitly state that states cannot secede, but it does give the federal government the authority to put down rebellions. That is probably good enough. Stating that the union is perpetual is probably something that the founders just forgot to mention, or thought would just be carried over from their old constitution. The current constitution also only gives Congress the power to declare war while the old one also gave them the power to declare peace, but I don't hear anyone arguing that all constitutionally declared wars must be waged forever.

 

[Snorrius]

I too doubt that the US Constitution will stop this from happening. The sheer irrationality and laughability of this suggestion is what will stop it from happening.

When country go through economy and political crash, which USA is planned to experience withing next few years, people may take irrational decisions. Think about Soviet Union. Breakup of SU was bad for its former population from the rational viewpoint - it just made things much worse. Breakup of Yugoslavia made nothing good but tears and grief. Most of former British African colonies lost in terms of wealth. Still states broke up and colonies became independent.

 

[plarq]

When country go through economy and political crash, which USA is planned to experience withing next few years, people may take irrational decisions. Think about Soviet Union. Breakup of SU was bad for its former population from the rational viewpoint - it just made things much worse. Breakup of Yugoslavia made nothing good but tears and grief. Most of former British African colonies lost in terms of wealth. Still states broke up and colonies became independent.

Hey, some entities gain from the breakup, it is win-lose, not lose-lose.

 

[Snorrius]

Hey, some entities gain from the breakup, it is win-lose, not lose-lose.

I meant population of this countries in general. Some won, but most lost.

 

[plarq]

I meant population of this countries in general. Some won, but most lost.

Croatia, Slovenia...

Not to mention Baltic States, you don't like them and they don't like you, nice solution.

 

[Snorrius]

Croatia, Slovenia...

Not to mention Baltic States, you don't like them and they don't like you, nice solution.

Croatia and Slovenia were prosperous in Yugoslavia as well, so if this country would make "rational" choice (i.e. without wars, breaking up etc), they would excel now as well. Baltic states from the "rational" viewpoint (i.e. if we think about well-being of people and not about more intangible thinks like "freedom" or "democracy" which are not in domain of "rationality") lost which is obvious now.

So my point was is that people do not make rational decisions everytime. I would say it is the contrary.

 

[Theige]

I meant population of this countries in general. Some won, but most lost.

If by most lost, you mean mostly just Russia lost, and most others have been better off since, then you would be right.

The rest of the former Soviet Bloc has been much better off since 1991, I think most would agree, especially the people in those nations outside of Russia. Heck, even Russia is better off now than it was then

 

[Camikaze]

Croatia and Slovenia were prosperous in Yugoslavia as well, so if this country would make "rational" choice (i.e. without wars, breaking up etc), they would excel now as well. Baltic states from the "rational" viewpoint (i.e. if we think about well-being of people and not about more intangible thinks like "freedom" or "democracy" which are not in domain of "rationality") lost which is obvious now.

So my point was is that people do not make rational decisions everytime. I would say it is the contrary.

Freedom and democracy are not rational concepts? That's news to me.

 

[Theige]

Freedom and democracy are not rational concepts? That's news to me.

Word. Freedom is just about the most basic, common sense, and rational concept I know of

 

[plarq]

If by most lost, you mean mostly just Russia lost, and most others have been better off since, then you would be right.

The rest of the former Soviet Bloc has been much better off since 1991, I think most would agree, especially the people in those nations outside of Russia. Heck, even Russia is better off now than it was then

IIRC, Russia has its PPP GDP raised by 25% since the dissolution of Soviet Union.

 

[Camikaze]

IIRC, Russia has its PPP GDP raised by 25% since the dissolution of Soviet Union.

And not just only that. Snorrius, whilst I hate to tell someone about their own economy, I have to point out that Russia is now better off than it was under the Soviet Union.

Despite obvious early problems with the transformation of the economy from control to market, the Russian economy has recovered to a level better than that of its old self. Russia's HDI has recovered to 0.802, a bit higher than it was at the breakup of the Soviet Union. GDP per capita is over double what it was in 1992, with GDP over $2 trillion, at a growth rate of 8%. The economy is expected to grow by 50% by 2013. People can actually now choose what to spend their money on. FDI has increased tenfold in the last twenty years, and the services sector is strengthening. Tourism has comparatively gone through the roof, and privatisation of many economic sectors has increased efficiency.

Yes there has also been negative economic issues since the Soviet Union broke up, but overall, Russia is a lot better off.

 

[Hygro]

I'm pretty sure that guy posts on CFC.

/thread

 

[Badass]

There wasn't widespread agreement on whether the Constitution allowed secession, but it got settled in a very convincing and clear manner in the 1860s.

Just because something gets settled by force does not make it "convincing"- what force can settle one way force can settle the other, but it doesn't make it morally or legally right.

The word state was used directly after the word united, to indicate that the former sovereign entities had been united, and superseded by the new, wholistic and singular entity.

That doesn't make sense- if that were the case, the United States would cease to be States as soon as it came into existence.

Wherer US constitution stops state from seceding, I doubt it will be the thing which will stop this process, US army can try to this if it will have to.

I am arguing legal theory and moral right to secede, not whether the U.S army can be stopped for supressing it. I agree they would if a state tried, as least as of current.

I too doubt that the US Constitution will stop this from happening. The sheer irrationality and laughability of this suggestion is what will stop it from happening.

That is an argument of reductio ad absurdum. I can claim that the sheer irrationality and laughability of "United States" will stop it from happening, but that doesn't make it any more true.

The style The United States of America was established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation. The notion that the name itself implies it isn't a confederacy is not correct.

I just noticed that The Articles of Confederation are oficially called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and that Article XIII explicitly states that the union shall be perpetual. This strengthens the case that the states do not have the right to withdraw from the Union, but it conflicts with your distinction between a Union and Confederacy.


The constitution does not explicitly state that states cannot secede, but it does give the federal government the authority to put down rebellions. That is probably good enough. Stating that the union is perpetual is probably something that the founders just forgot to mention, or thought would just be carried over from their old constitution. The current constitution also only gives Congress the power to declare war while the old one also gave them the power to declare peace, but I don't hear anyone arguing that all constitutionally declared wars must be waged forever.

To quote James Madison:
"The compound government of the United States is without a model, and to be explained by itself, not by similitudes or analogies"

 

[Camikaze]

And to quote Andrew Jackson:

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

 

[Dachs]

When country go through economy and political crash, which USA is planned to experience withing next few years, people may take irrational decisions. Think about Soviet Union. Breakup of SU was bad for its former population from the rational viewpoint - it just made things much worse. Breakup of Yugoslavia made nothing good but tears and grief. Most of former British African colonies lost in terms of wealth. Still states broke up and colonies became independent.

Who's planning it? Russia?

 

[Badass]

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.

Firstly, Andrew Jackson is not a Founding Father nor had anything to do with the drafting of teh Constitution, therefore his views should not be consulted on interpreting it.

Secondly, the word "nation" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. There is no reason to believe that the States had joined into a single nation, nor that there can be no secession from nations. Until these principles are established, the argument will hold no weight.

 

[Camikaze]

Andrew Jackson is not a Founding Father nor had anything to do with the drafting of teh Constitution, therefore his views should not be consulted on interpreting it.

What? So no one but the founding fathers can interpret the constitution? So the Supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution? Constitutional scholars cannot interpret the Constitution? Surely this means that your views are also completely void in the interpretation of the Constitution.