Should States be able to leave the Union?

[Duddha]

It's implied by the precedents established in the Civl war and the nullification crisis that the U.S. government's soveriegnty overrules the other's.

It isn't written in law. Common law doesn't exist in America as far I understand.

It's not about the size, it's about the fact that the state was part of the union. If allowing that state to leave threatens the sovereignty of the union as a whole than the state is threatening to take away the soveriegnty of the union. In your claim with Taiwan it doesn't apply as it was never part of Red China. However with California if it sets the precedent that abandoning the union is okay, and America as a whole does not want the Union to be abandoned then America as a whole has a legitamate reason to fight your state's soveriegnty. Much like you your neighbors cannot declare the block to be an independant nation because doing so would allow others and soon the nation would be splintered into little nationlets a state cannot do the same thing.

The key is the idea of a groups soverienty does not automatically override the soveriegnty of a greater group it is in.

If a state left the Union it would cease to exist as the same entity, just as happened with Tawain. Any state would have to form a new government and cease existing as the old state entity. I don't fear a country splintering into increasingly small parts, because just as in says in the Declaration of Independance, a government is meant to serve its people, and so long as that happens people will keeping buying into the governments they are apart off.

 

[Archer 007]

I think it's different when it comes to Chechnya, who was annexed through military action and say Michigan, who joined voluntarily. But Hawai'i is iffy.

I feel sorry for the people of Chechnya, but that doesnt change things.

 

[Archer 007]

It isn't written in law. Common law doesn't exist in America as far I understand.

Yes it does.

 

[Duddha]

I'm sorry, a war 150 years ago, justified by ending slavery, does not nullify the right to independace.

 

[Perfection]

It isn't written in law. Common law doesn't exist in America as far I understand.

No but precedence is a very powerful force that shapes constituional interpretation.

If a state left the Union it would cease to exist as the same entity, just as happened with Tawain. Any state would have to form a new government and cease existing as the old state entity. I don't fear a country splintering into increasingly small parts, because just as in says in the Declaration of Independance, a government is meant to serve its people, and so long as that happens people will keeping buying into the governments they are apart off.

A government is ment to serve it's people but it doesn't mean that the people from one region of the government's bounds can override it as they please. If the good of the people as a whole (The whole U.S.) is threatened by the gains of a subgroup (California seceding) than the group as a whole can have the right to curb the freedom of the subgroup. While I might gain from declaring independance from the United states and declaring my house an independant nation, the good of the nation forbids me too, just like the good of the U.S. can forbid California from seceding.

 

[Duddha]

Let's not bring the subjective "good" into this discussion.

How was the original American independance movement from Britian justifiable by your standards?

 

[Stapel]

Let's not bring the subjective "good" into this discussion.

How was the original American independance movement from Britian justifiable by your standards?

There was taxation, without representation......

Anyway: 650.000 men died over the question: Secession is illegal.
The civil war was not simply justified by ending slavery. It is more complex. Though the war was caused by the different views on slavery, most southern, non slaveholding soldiers were fighting for freedom and independence (in their way), and most nothern soldiers were fighting to save the union, not to free the slaves.
Only in late 1862, Lincoln got convinced slavery should be abolished in the whole union. The strongest arguement for this, was that slavery caused the war, and thus, to prevent another one in the future, it should be getten rid off.

If McCLellan would have succeeded to strike a decisive blow in the summer of 1861, the union would probably have been saved, with slavery still existing.

 

[Duddha]

There was taxation, without representation......

California doesn't have equal representation with the rest of the country...

 

[privatehudson]

If the original colonists were permitted to leave the Empire, secede or declare independance if you like, I'd consider it highly hypocritical of America to then deny the same right to the states within it simply because the rest of the union does not like it. The civil war was justified in denying the rights of the south to leave by virtue of the greater good, freeing the slave population could only be done through restoring the union at that time. It might not have been the only reason, but it's good enough for me.

However if a modern day state such as Hawaii (only for example) democratically wished to leave I find it most interesting that the USA would force it to stay. Realistically though the chances of somewhere like the US allowing states to secede is right about zero.

 

[Plexus]

@Duddha- Thus are the woes of a bicameral legislature.

 

[bigfatron]

No but precedence is a very powerful force that shapes constituional interpretation.

A government is ment to serve it's people but it doesn't mean that the people from one region of the government's bounds can override it as they please. If the good of the people as a whole (The whole U.S.) is threatened by the gains of a subgroup (California seceding) than the group as a whole can have the right to curb the freedom of the subgroup. While I might gain from declaring independance from the United states and declaring my house an independant nation, the good of the nation forbids me too, just like the good of the U.S. can forbid California from seceding.

I thought the US was founded on the principle of freedom for the individual and the will of the people. Basically you are advocating the retention of territory by force against the wishes of the inhabitants!

I'm baffled how anyone can hold out against peaceful secession if that is the will of the people....

 

[Stapel]

I thought the US was founded on the principle of freedom for the individual and the will of the people. Basically you are advocating the retention of territory by force against the wishes of the inhabitants!

I'm baffled how anyone can hold out against peaceful secession if that is the will of the people....

A naive statement.
On what level should secession be possible?
State?
County?
City?
Street?
Or your own land (property)?

 

[Stapel]

California doesn't have equal representation with the rest of the country...

Equal representation seems somewhat far fetched, considering the US is a federal nation.

 

[Duddha]

A naive statement.
On what level should secession be possible?
State?
County?
City?
Street?
Or your own land (property)?

Naive statement?

It seems that the only real justification for anti-secessionism is a sickening total belief in some sort of Machiavellian or Hobbesian world view that trampels on the notions of democracy, freedom, independance, and fairness. It is frankly un-American.

 

[JohnRM]

If facts could show overwhelming popular support for seccession, I would support such action, by any state. I would not like it, but I would support the right, of any people, to self-determination.

I may be mistaken, but I thought that this was one of the founding ideals of this country.

However, there are always certain exceptions to every rule. In the case of the seccession of the southern States, there was hardly overwhelming popular support to secede. Added to that is the fact that, if my memory serves, there were three million blacks that would have disagreed and they did not get a chance to voice their opinion, for obvious reasons. What is even more is the fact that the South started the war and therefor was the aggressor, in the conflict.

In the case of any of the various modern seccessionist movements, there is obviously little support for such action.

 

[Stapel]

Naive statement?

It seems that the only real justification for anti-secessionism is a sickening total belief in some sort of Machiavellian or Hobbesian world view that trampels on the notions of democracy, freedom, independance, and fairness. It is frankly un-American.

You didn't even think about my statement.

If secession should be legal, on what level should it happen?

There is no way to decide that!
If it is legal, one can secede with his own home.....

 

[Stapel]

If facts could show overwhelming popular support for seccession, I would support such action, by any state. I would not like it, but I would support the right, of any people, to self-determination.

I may be mistaken, but I thought that this was one of the founding ideals of this country.

However, there are always certain exceptions to every rule. In the case of the seccession of the southern States, there was hardly overwhelming popular support to secede.

I think the state congress (named congress????) of South Carolina voted for secession unanimously (not regarding blacks of course).

 

[IglooDame]

Secession, like any revolution, is like suicide under the law: the attempt is illegal, but to succeed in doing so renders the law against it moot.

I'm pretty much in agreement with John HSOG - on the whole I think it is warranted; to voluntarily join the Union implies an option to leave. As to those who say "what prevents a neighborhood from seceding then" I'd answer that since states are the largest political unit other than the US itself, that the neighborhood would first have to seek secession from the city/county, then the state, and then as a separate state it could seek national-level secession.

 

[Plexus]

I think the state congress (named congress????) of South Carolina voted for secession unanimously (not regarding blacks of course).

A state legislature doesn't have the kind of power to make that big of a decision. Like in Puerto Rico when it comes to joining the Union, it should be done by a public referendum.

 

[Stapel]

A state legislature doesn't have the kind of power to make that big of a decision. Like in Puerto Rico when it comes to joining the Union, it should be done by a public referendum.

joining and seceeding are different ballgames.

Anyway: what does American law say about it?
Under what circumstances can a state seceed? None? approval by congress? Anything known on this subject?