PresidentMike
Technical Fool
If that were to ever happen, there wouldn't be a U.S. to elect a U.S. president.
Should any states become their own nations?
- Thread starter Sims2789
- Start date
If that were to ever happen, there wouldn't be a U.S. to elect a U.S. president.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
What a ridiculous poll. Every state should have self-determination.
phoenix_night
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,853
@sims2789,
I don't think you mean nation. A nation is not an independent state. It's an entirely different concept. What you should have asked was "Should any states become independent?".
I don't think you mean nation. A nation is not an independent state. It's an entirely different concept. What you should have asked was "Should any states become independent?".
Nad
Known Troublemaker
I think California should become independant. No particular reason why, but it was the one state I really loved while I was over there 
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
If, say, 75% of Alaskans wanted to become indepedent, this would be denied, then, would it?
What about the same number in, say, New York?
PresidentMike
Technical Fool
Forgive me, but that answer reveals a lack of understanding of American history and government. In order for the federal union to work, states cannot leave: hence the *United* States of America. When a territory petitioned congress for statehood, it committed itself to permanently joining the greater union. The entire basis for federalism and the constitution would be undermined if a state were allowed to leave whenever it felt like it. We fought our Civil War (in part) to resolve this issue. It was the most horrific war in our history, and it produced a new understanding of American unity that has never gone away. No state has ever even suggested leaving since, and I cannot forsee the circumstances under which a state would threaten to secede in the future.
We are not New Yorkers or Californians or South Carolinians or Texans or Ohians. We are Americans. We take pride in our states, but we take even greater pride in our country and its democratic institutions.
PresidentMike
Technical Fool
In the *highly*, *highly*, *highly* unlikely event that this happened: yes, they would not be allowed to leave. But I can't imagine any circumstances under which this this would occur.
What you're asking is highly theoretical speculation, along the lines of "What if Hitler was born a woman? How would history have been different?" It's an interesting, but meaningless, question.
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
they can legally be prevented from leaving???
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I'm sure someone else has asked, by why not Alaska?
PresidentMike
Technical Fool
Actually, only Texas and Virginia held statewide votes that approved of secession. In every other state voters elected delegates to a state convention, which then voted to secede.
It's interesting to examine these convention elections. There were actually a good share of "conditional unionists" elected, that is people who did not favor secession (at least, not at that time). However they were in a minority, and once it became clear their state's were going to leave despite their ojbections, they voted "aye" in order to present a united front.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Sweet, my post was erased.
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
And you would support that?
It's semi-philosophical, and therefore relies on speculation.
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
can't you post again?
well, if they are not allowed to leave, then the United States is a stupid name too. Sure, they have some independence, but they are still dogs lined to the federal state. They have no real freedom.
well, if they are not allowed to leave, then the United States is a stupid name too. Sure, they have some independence, but they are still dogs lined to the federal state. They have no real freedom.
PresidentMike
Technical Fool
100%
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Nope, it was a magical, once in a lifetime post.
The real reason is I'm too lazy. The gist of my argument was that the Lincoln was the one going against the constitution, not the South. But I don't think he was necessarily wrong.
This is sadly true. The abuses of the Federal Government in this day and age would turn Lincoln's stomach, and probably kill the founders outright.
PresidentMike
Technical Fool
The constitution itself does not specifically say that a state cannot leave, but as was pointed out in 1860-65, no government is created with a self-destruct mechanism. In other words, allowing a state to depart would destroy the foundation of union that the constitution was built on. The constitution does confer the highest attributes of sovereignty exclusivley to the federal government (coining and printing of money, defense, foreign affairs, etc.) and also states that it is the "supreme law of the land...any thing in the...laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." To allow a minority to break up the government at will would lead to the collapse of the constitution and to anarchy. The federal government would never recognize an "independent" Alaska, nor do I find it likely that the courts would approve a "right" of secession. The only possible way it could be done would be to ammend the constitution to provide a means for states to leave, something which is also highly unlikely.
