New poll shows 1 in 4 Americans Open to Secession

a reply to: DJW001


Political stalemate is built into the constitution as part of the balance of power. Its a good thing!

originally posted by: DJW001
I suspect that one thing the poll also reveals is that onei n four Americans do not know what the word "secession" means.

Yeah, I suspect there may be some truth in that statement considering the lack of political and historical knowledge that is always found in surveys. Nonetheless, prevailing attitudes and grievances suggest that number is probably about right.

Theere is enough resentment of the political stalemate in Washington at the moment, that many are simply making a statement of disgust by claiming to favor secession. Whereas those in the states most vocal about seceding are allowing their regional pride to cloud their judgement. For example, the second largest employment sector in Texas is government, larger even than the energy sector. Can you imagine what Texas would look like if the United States closed all its military bases in Texas and moved NASA north? Now that modern naval craft do not require coal, the United States fleet could easily close its bases in Hawaii, and it could depend entirely on tourism and pineapple farming. Somehow, I don't think either state would welcome that reality.

Another good point(s). As mentioned throughout the thread secession is best for a last resort. Getting back to State's Rights would be a better option combined with holding a Convention of the States and addressing the grievances the public has to mold solutions within the Constitution itself. There is a movement to do just this that you can look into here

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: grandmakdw

I vote to have Washington DC secede from the union!

Show of hands?

You could always invite us Brits and Canadians back to finish burning it to the ground?

*Shakes finger*

You had your chance!

a reply to: AllSourceIntel


By the way, have you noticed, if you happen to watch, the more left centered news outlets hiss and spit about states exercising more of their legal autonomy? The progressives have convinced a good number of constitutional ignorant folks that states rights means back to slavery and a bunch of other bulls*it. What really bothers them is that state coffers may become state coffers and not federal a slush fund.

Best divorce court proceedings ever...

But seriously, your bags are packed and sitting on the lawn. Don't call, don't text.

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Giving back state powers? A convention of States? Really?

What federal gov't ever gives back power to people/states?

If the original 13 could barely come up with an agreement that restricted Federal powers, what chance has 50 have reaching an accord on anything?

I'm pretty sure Ca. and others would end up in a fist fight with Texas, Utah.

In other words, your thoughts are nice, but as impractical as fixing the mess we have now.

Forget secession..Dissolve the Union completely. Each can choose it's own path. Stay independent, form new, smaller entities, be it politically based or economically.

Perhaps somewhere in the new cacophony, liberty would re-emerge.... (Nice try Scotland!)

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: DJW001


Political stalemate is built into the constitution as part of the balance of power. Its a good thing!

No, it is not. Checks and balances between institutions and between states are built into the Constitution, not stalemate. The founders wanted interstate relations to go as smoothly as possible, not to grind to a halt.

If you want to succeed then all the power to you.

But if that were to happen than other states may well follow suit, and sooner or later you'll end up with more cooks than chefs. Methinks the need to succeed wouldn't be an issue if the current way of governance was reevaluated and restructured in an open forum instead of in the back rooms.

But if that were to happen expect a number of threads titled "A pig just flew by my window."

Sounds like hobsons choice .. jump and hope for best .. or stay for the impending trainwreck ..

a reply to: SLAYER69

On a global scale yes (if it is what the people want, not what the politicians want)...I support people being independent...but of course...there are always more variables than just saying yes. What is sad is where you have something like Scotland having it be 55%. That means 45% wanted the opposite. Of course it would be nice to see something like 80%.

I think large massive countries are part of today's problems. We don't think alike. Or maybe in the case of the usa give the states more power. But its all under the same crap.

The world has huge problems. I don't know the answer but at this point id be willing to try about anything.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: DJW001


Political stalemate is built into the constitution as part of the balance of power. Its a good thing!

No, it is not. Checks and balances between institutions and between states are built into the Constitution, not stalemate. The founders wanted interstate relations to go as smoothly as possible, not to grind to a halt.

What the founders recognized is that represented government was a check and balance. It gives the people an opportunity to recover, after motivations and aims have been exposed, to replace house and senate seats with opposition candidates. When the president complains about stalemate you got to wonder if he knows anything about the constitution before he was elected or is this his first lesson. Well he doses know. Blaming the Tea party and Republicans as the reasons he cant get things done is just politicking. No one is really obligated to work with the president at any time. Check and Balance.

a reply to: Logarock

No one is really obligated to work with the president at any time. Check and Balance.

Wrong. Everyone in government is obligated to work with one another to express the will of We, the People. Refusal to do so is not "check and balance," it is short sighted political will. If someone in Congress does not like legislation to address a particular issue, it is their duty to offer a counter-proposal. President Obama is not the one in need of a Civics class.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: AllSourceIntel

Giving back state powers? A convention of States? Really?

What federal gov't ever gives back power to people/states?

If the original 13 could barely come up with an agreement that restricted Federal powers, what chance has 50 have reaching an accord on anything?

I'm pretty sure Ca. and others would end up in a fist fight with Texas, Utah.

In other words, your thoughts are nice, but as impractical as fixing the mess we have now.

Forget secession..Dissolve the Union completely. Each can choose it's own path. Stay independent, form new, smaller entities, be it politically based or economically.

Perhaps somewhere in the new cacophony, liberty would re-emerge.... (Nice try Scotland!)

You tell me "What federal gov't ever gives back power to people/states?" and then expect that same Government to allow itself to be completely dissolved? Self preservation alone would dictate and allow ratification and amendment to the Constitution or even secession of a few states over being dissolved, that my friend, is not going to happen absent cataclysm.

It only takes 2/3 of the State's to call and bring about a Convention, something that no matter what, the Federal Government cannot ignore seeing how it is Article V of the Constitution, they can claim formalities were not done properly, but that argument would be hard pressed and is an easy fix; if they did try to muscle a Convention away, it would be political suicide leading to secession or revolution. Can the States agree on an amendment? Yes. It would not be an easy process but all the States primarily share the same grievances, especially fiscal and spending grievances.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Logarock

No one is really obligated to work with the president at any time. Check and Balance.

Wrong. Everyone in government is obligated to work with one another to express the will of We, the People. Refusal to do so is not "check and balance," it is short sighted political will. If someone in Congress does not like legislation to address a particular issue, it is their duty to offer a counter-proposal. President Obama is not the one in need of a Civics class.

Well he got a civics class when his parties majority was checked during the last election and looks set to be totally bounced in the next one. And where pray tell is it anyone's obligation to answer a proposal with a counter proposal?

a reply to: AllSourceIntel

OK, then please explain why we haven't had a convention of States before now. It's not like it hasn't been needed.
LOL

My 'guess' is each state has their own fears that things would go against their own vested interests. Not to mention the well blackmailed state gov'ts dependent on Federal funds....

The 'gridlock' is just as deep at a state level as at the federal level.

A few states seem to be rising up and requesting/demanding a Convention, but I suspect their frustration with the rest of the malingering states is raising almost daily.

In rebuttal, any action by the Federal gov't to block a Convention aimed at dissolving the Union- or for any purpose- would assure a revolution by the states themselves, IMO.

The Brits handled the Scottish issue well, though I had hoped the Scots would lead the way back to Liberty...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
OK, then please explain why we haven't had a convention of States before now. It's not like it hasn't been needed.
LOL

In contemporary America or the entire history of America? Every time you enjoy an alcoholic beverage you can thank the Convention of States as the 21st Amendment was ratified in this way:

The Prohibition (Eighteenth, 1919) and repeal (Twenty-First, 1933) amendments, which represent the only case of a later amendment directly reversing an earlier one, were ratified by the two different methods allowed by Article V of the United States Constitution: the former by state legislatures, the latter by state conventions. This essay examines the legislatures-or-conventions dichotomy as a microcosm of William Riker's treatment of liberalism and populism, with specific attention paid to the state conventions that ratified repeal. Using previously uncollected county data from the special elections to choose the 1933 convention delegates, this study demonstrates that invocation of the convention method was strategic, and intended not only to legitimate the Twenty-First Amendment but also to improve its chances of passage.

My 'guess' is each state has their own fears that things would go against their own vested interests. Not to mention the well blackmailed state gov'ts dependent on Federal funds....

The 'gridlock' is just as deep at a state level as at the federal level.

A few states seem to be rising up and requesting/demanding a Convention, but I suspect their frustration with the rest of the malingering states is raising almost daily.

It is hard to say why we haven't had another one by now, in the last several years. No doubt the points you raise are part of it, likely the power of the purse over vested interest as they have to apply for such on the same issue(s) so it's not like its a free for all when one is called, the issue is agreed upon to call one, the text is agreed upon while conducting one. Why haven't they agreed on an issue then if their grievances are shared? Again, as you noted, probably power of the purse and also, to my knowledge, there hasn't been an organized movement to do just hat until the last few years (see the link I posted earlier for Convention of States website). The gridlock indeed exists at State level as well, but more and more people are putting pressure on Government at all levels and more are understanding change is going to happen locally and at the State. The movement for citizens to put pressure on State legislatures to hold a Convention seems t be growing, slowly, but growing.

In rebuttal, any action by the Federal gov't to block a Convention aimed at dissolving the Union- or for any purpose- would assure a revolution by the states themselves, IMO.

Yes, more than likely but it should never come to that, that is the absolute last option, a failed state it would be. We would want to try the avenues laid out before us prior to it ever coming to that. Also, States will call a Convention for ratifying new amendments way, way before any would agree to dissolve the Union.

If your state breaks away from the US, your state will have to pay it's share of the national debt back.

I don't ever, EVER see this happening. So, no -- we will not ever see this happening anytime soon.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Maybe we can crowdfund it or get a referendum going to forgive that debt... as long as they gtfo.

As the op has asked if we are in favor or against secession, for states to leave the union, that has become the United States of America. To break out and become their own country, no longer under the jurisdiction of Washington DC, with its own laws and all that goes along with it.

This is not something to consider lightly, and a lot of thought would have to be put into it, along with what laws the new country would have in place, along with what government it would take. And then there would be the mass number of people who either choose to stay with the new country or leave to remain with the old.

There is always talk of such, yet very few talk about what happens after such, how the new country would be run, what would the effects of the loss would be. How does it balance out, and what allies it would seek in the world with other countries around the world to do trade and have alliances with.

Then there is the infrastructure, which runs the country, how would that be handled? One state could not do this alone, no matter how well it is off; it would have to be several states breaking away. And there is the question of what happens if it fails, how does it approach that aspect of such? And what about social issues, how would those be handled? There are some parts of the country that does not like this group or that group, what guarantees would there be for them?

The social, economic and political aspects of such are staggering. And then as one poster pointed out, the national debt, to break away, means that the new country would have to assume part of that debt at the very start of its birth.

I am against secession, not cause I do not think it would be a good idea, just that there too many questions and not enough answers or details on what happens afterwards, or how either side would handle the mass number of people coming in or leaving.

originally posted by: jimmyx
let the red states go, they're the ones sucking out all the federal tax dollars from the blue states. they are also the ones that complain the loudest about taxes, all the while getting the biggest share. screw them...they're the ones that are still pissed off about losing the civil war...now they can have the chance to bring back slavery, outlaw abortions and women's rights, deport anyone that isn't white or a slave, and form a Christian nation run by the bible.

Most of those "tax dollars" go to the heavy Blue Democrat voting pocket areas in those "Red States".

That's where the majority of high poverty/high crime exists.

The "Red" States I'm sure would succeed only if Blue voters would agree leave !!