Should States be able to leave the Union?

[insurgent]

Yes, secession should be allowed in any country.

 

[CurtSibling]

Why not just have the Civil War II and be done with it.

Imagine the entertainment value for the rest of the world!

 

[Duddha]

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.....

If you think you can provide yourself with all the services and protections of a soveriegn nation then go ahead and do it.

 

[JohnRM]

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

I meant by referendum.

 

[Perfection]

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

But the question is by nature is subjective. One cannot answer that completly objectively without making subjective claims

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

It's justifiable as in this case problems of the British government's oprression on the was extreme enough to warrant seperation. I do not dispute that some seccesionist claims are valid, however I will dispute the idea that all succesionist claims with majority support from their area must be valid.

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!

The good of the people outside of the region can override the good of the people inside. If I declare my house an independant nation and so do not pay taxes the government can take my house away. The good of the few doesn't always supercede the good of the many.

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

Because the region in question does not exist in a vacuum, if granting them seccesion causes much problems to the the nation as a whole, than the will of the nation as a whole is against secession. Additionally not allowing the nation to disintegrate is not the same as using violence to enforce it (although in some cases it may be warrented), other options like negotiation may be an answer. I'm just saying the presence of a majority seccesionist movement in a region it doesn't make it inherently correct.

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.

If allowing secession of Califronia threatens the nation's security it threatens my democracy, freedom, and independance. How can it be fair for my government to allow something that will threaten all other states and the freedom of the rest of the nation? Additionally I find it quite ironic that you are judging my ideas to be un-American when you wish to leave America under those principles.

 

[Duddha]

But the question is by nature is subjective. One cannot answer that completly objectively without making subjective claims

The problem is you gloss the "good" other faults in your argument, by saying it is against the "good" of the larger group, subjecting the smaller group to whatever is the larger group feels is in its own "good".

It's justifiable as in this case problems of the British government's oprression on the was extreme enough to warrant seperation. I do not dispute that some seccesionist claims are valid, however I will dispute the idea that all succesionist claims with majority support from their area must be valid.

What if I said California wanted to secede over issues of representation, taxes, and liberty with an overwhelming support of the populace? Are you the arbiter to decide what is justifiable and what is not? Give some clear guide lines. My guide lines follow of the principle of popular sovereignty.

The good of the people outside of the region can override the good of the people inside. If I declare my house an independant nation and so do not pay taxes the government can take my house away. The good of the few doesn't always supercede the good of the many.

A clear example of using the "good" to plug a hole in your argument. How is this "good" defined?

You forget that when an entity, such as a person, secedes, they reject prior privileges and protections previously afforded them, making such small secessions unrealistic. The person may no longer have to pay taxes but their children can no longer go to school. A clear trade off, viewed from an unsubjective veiwpoint.

If allowing secession of Califronia threatens the nation's security it threatens my democracy, freedom, and independance. How can it be fair for my government to allow something that will threaten all other states and the freedom of the rest of the nation? Additionally I find it quite ironic that you are judging my ideas to be un-American when you wish to leave America under those principles.

How would California secession, or another state secession, threaten your democracy, freedom, and independance? (I assume this is what you mean by the "good") What you are taking about is keeping people subjected to whatever system is already in place, even if it is against their wishes, a clearly undemocratic and tyranical idea. My use of the word un-American is purposely ironic, to show the inconsistancy of an American claiming to uphold the values of their country holding anti-secessionist beliefs.

 

[Sanaz]

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

"Equal" is actually "proportional" in this case. It would be unequal if California had the same representation as the rest of the country combined. California does have proportional representation, and it will lose a vote for secession with the rest of the country. It isn't only California's choice, obviously.

What if I said California wanted to secede over issues of representation, taxes, and liberty with an overwhelming support of the populace? Are you the arbiter to decide what is justifiable and what is not? Give some clear guide lines. My guide lines follow of the principle of popular sovereignty.

Actually, the only guideline that matters in this case is the US military. California secedes, US military takes it back. See the US Civil War for more details. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, unless the US didn't want California anymore for some reason. Is this right or is it wrong? I don't know, and hardly care, as it is what it is.

 

[zjl56]

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.

Well The U.S was going against the good of the British people should that have stopped the colonists?

 

[RoddyVR]

my opinion is that cessasion should be allowed at any level.
i like the idea of having to seperate from the smaller governing bodies before trying from the bigger ones (ie cede from the city before the county before the state before the union).

if you want to cede, you have to consider that you will loose all privalages of being a member of the whole.
if you as a person(ie house) cede from the union, then you cant use the union's roads without paying an entry fee and some sort of road use tax. you cant have the fire department put out your house when its on fire, without paying them in advance for said protection. same with police. and army. if a foreign nation invades you (like the US itself), then you'll have to protect yourself. it is VERY unlikely that anything like the UN or something similar will step in to defend you, so you're on your own fighting back the whole US military. and once they conquer you, you have no longer the right to your own property. problem over.

with a state ceding, that is different.
a state CAN protect itself, and something like the UN WOULD be on your side if the US tried to force you to rejoin. a state does not NEED the services of the rest of the nation to survive, so it could as far as i'm concerned seperate from the union.
i would want a VERY high percentage of the population to support it though, and it would definetly have to be a public vote, not some crapy representation system.

 

[Duddha]

"Equal" is actually "proportional" in this case. It would be unequal if California had the same representation as the rest of the country combined. California does have proportional representation, and it will lose a vote for secession with the rest of the country. It isn't only California's choice, obviously. Actually, the only guideline that matters in this case is the US military. California secedes, US military takes it back. See the US Civil War for more details. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, unless the US didn't want California anymore for some reason. Is this right or is it wrong? I don't know, and hardly care, as it is what it is.

California does not have proportional representation.

It is California's or any other state's choice. What makes it the rest of the country's choice?

The Indonesian military decided East Timor could not secede. Were they justified in their actions?

Again American exceptionalism rears its ugly head.

 

[Perfection]

The problem is you gloss the "good" other faults in your argument, by saying it is against the "good" of the larger group, subjecting the smaller group to whatever is the larger group feels is in its own "good".

I'm not saying the larger group has absolute control, but their needs certainly deserve consideration

What if I said California wanted to secede over issues of representation, taxes, and liberty with an overwhelming support of the populace? Are you the arbiter to decide what is justifiable and what is not? Give some clear guide lines. My guide lines follow of the principle of popular sovereignty.

Funny, most of these can be applied to the confederacy. As per quidelines I don't think they exist. Popular sovereignty may work in some circumstances but not in all.

A clear example of using the "good" to plug a hole in your argument. How is this "good" defined?

Satisfaction of the percieved needs/wants of group,

You forget that when an entity, such as a person, secedes, they reject prior privileges and protections previously afforded them, making such small secessions unrealistic. The person may no longer have to pay taxes but their children can no longer go to school. A clear trade off, viewed from an unsubjective veiwpoint.

What if they want to educate thier kids to the ways of the devine serpant? If a cult wants to set up a commune independant from the U.S. government should they be allowed to?

How would California secession, or another state secession, threaten your democracy, freedom, and independance? (I assume this is what you mean by the "good") What you are taking about is keeping people subjected to whatever system is already in place, even if it is against their wishes, a clearly undemocratic and tyranical idea. My use of the word un-American is purposely ironic, to show the inconsistancy of an American claiming to uphold the values of their country holding anti-secessionist beliefs.

Simple, I feel that it would threaten the ability of the U.S. to handle foriegn and domestic threats, the loss of such ports would threaten the economy, the internal strife would eat away at our tax dollars. Things would disimprove in the U.S. Of course, Califronia is somewhat of an absurd example, because there is little reason or support for a seccesionist movement.

 

[Duddha]

Funny, most of these can be applied to the confederacy. As per quidelines I don't think they exist. Popular sovereignty may work in some circumstances but not in all.

Outside of the slavery issue, the Confederacy had ever right to peacefully secede, which they didn't.

Satisfaction of the percieved needs/wants of group.

The US is very satisfied with the 50+ billion it takes from California every year. Is that a justification in itself?

What if they want to educate thier kids to the ways of the devine serpant? If a cult wants to set up a commune independant from the U.S. government should they be allowed to?

I don't see a problem. This already happens. It is also not a valid point of discussion/example for what we are talking about.

Simple, I feel that it would threaten the ability of the U.S. to handle foriegn and domestic threats, the loss of such ports would threaten the economy, the internal strife would eat away at our tax dollars. Things would disimprove in the U.S. Of course, Califronia is somewhat of an absurd example, because there is little reason or support for a seccesionist movement.

How would secession threaten the USA's ability to handle foriegn and domestic threats? Is Mexico's or Canada's independance a threat to the "good" of the US?

What do your examples have to do with democracy, freedom, and liberty?

In a peaceful secession, how would secession threaten USA's economy?

 

[Perfection]

Well The U.S was going against the good of the British people should that have stopped the colonists?

That's why I used words like "can have" the rights of the smaller group can override the rights of the larger as well. Unfortunately there is no clear cut guideline on which group's rughts outwiehg which.

 

[Sanaz]

California does not have proportional representation.

How is this true? Each state has representation in proportion to it's population (calif. pop./US pop.), as well as representation in proportion to itself as a state (1/50). At least, this is what I learned in school, and I've never thought about it since. I live in a state where we just picked up our 7th representative not too long ago, so in proportion, our vote means little. But then we have 1/50 of the power in the senate, just like every other state. Or are you thinking of a different form/definition of representation?

It is California's or any other state's choice. What makes it the rest of the country's choice?

Other than you saying this, why would you think it isn't the rest of the country's decision also? As I said earlier, California can secede, but the US would take it right back. It's done it before, and it will (and should) do it again, if necessary.

The Indonesian military decided East Timor could not secede. Were they justified in their actions?

Again American exceptionalism rears its ugly head.

I don't see how comparing this decision to decisions made in other countries, under different circumstances, is in any way relevant. The US handles its domestic issues fairly well, and while it can learn from other "situations", it doesn't need to make any decisions based on them. Why should it?

 

[Perfection]

Outside of the slavery issue, the Confederacy had ever right to peacefully secede, which they didn't.

So, now you're adding clauses to the idea of popular soverignty. Interesting.

The US is very satisfied with the 50+ billion it takes from California every year. Is that a justification in itself?

It takes a big wad of Minnesota funds too.

I don't see a problem. This already happens. It is also not a valid point of discussion/example for what we are talking about.

But the U.S. doesn't allow them to be independant. Should they be allowed it?

How would secession threaten the USA's ability to handle foriegn and domestic threats? Is Mexico's or Canada's independance a threat to the "good" of the US?

'cause we built up big military bases, we get tons of soldiers from california it would weaken the ability of the U.S. to fight insurgants

What do your examples have to do with democracy, freedom, and liberty?

The loss of economic stability threatens freedom because it gives rise to fascist movements, the loss of the ability to combat foriegn troops threatens our ability to defend ourselves and our values.

In a peaceful secession, how would secession threaten USA's economy?

Transitions always threaten economies. Plus it's unlikely it would be a happy divorce, even if peaceful so the economic ties will be strained. Tariffs may emerge, that would be pretty nasty.

 

[Sanaz]

Well The U.S was going against the good of the British people should that have stopped the colonists?

But the British did fight to keep it, naturally. Were they wrong to do so? Anyway, that was a long time ago, in a world with a very different political structure. Comparing it to the modern global world is mostly irrelevant.

 

[Sims2789]

Zjl56, that arguement is invalid.

One who is not forced to sign a contract still is forced to abide by it.

That proves Duddha's point even more: there is nothing in that contract that says that seccesion is illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that it was to promote their own political views. However, I do think that we should pass a law banning seccesion.

 

[Perfection]

Sims, there is a clear legal precedent that a state cannot go against the wishes of the federal government as established by the nullification crisis in the 1830s the civil war and the using of federal troops to enforce the civil rights acts in the 60s.

 

[Yaype]

Interesting point: Texas has the legal right to secede, at least according to the terms under which it joined the Union way back in the the early 19th century. Since it had gained its independence from Mexico, it was actually a country in itself, and upon deciding to merge with the United States, it was given the right to legally secede at a later date.

Also, Texas has the right to split itself into five separate states, also per the agreement way back when.

As for my opinion of the whole secession thing in terms of the United States, the issue was decided in 1865--let it rest, along with 650,000 men who died fighting to settle the issue.

 

[Duddha]

How is this true? Each state has representation in proportion to it's population (calif. pop./US pop.), as well as representation in proportion to itself as a state (1/50). At least, this is what I learned in school, and I've never thought about it since. I live in a state where we just picked up our 7th representative not too long ago, so in proportion, our vote means little. But then we have 1/50 of the power in the senate, just like every other state. Or are you thinking of a different form/definition of representation?

My say in California means proportionally less in the Electoral College and far less in the Senate than people from other states. California has a larger population than Canada. Why does it get the exact same number of senators as Rhode Island?

Other than you saying this, why would you think it isn't the rest of the country's decision also? As I said earlier, California can secede, but the US would take it right back. It's done it before, and it will (and should) do it again, if necessary.

The question is whether states should be able to secede, not what belligerent response the US would make.

I don't see how comparing this decision to decisions made in other countries, under different circumstances, is in any way relevant. The US handles its domestic issues fairly well, and while it can learn from other "situations", it doesn't need to make any decisions based on them. Why should it?

The circumstances are only different because they take place outside the US. The principle of self determination is universal. What makes the US case exceptional?

If your entire argument is based on American exceptionalism and you cannot find some universal principle to guide discussion of secession, there is nothing to discuss because I flatly disagree with you.