It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NiteDawn
a reply to: Metallicus
There is no where in the constitution to secede from the United States. You would have to declare war and forcibly remove yourself.
originally posted by: retiredTxn
a reply to: Metallicus
Whether the Authoritarians in Washington DC will allow the states to secede is another question, but I for one look forward to seeing the U.S. break up and split into smaller, self-governing regions.
This is a major part of the problem. Over the years, the States have ceded their power to the federal government, not retaining the power as it was intended. The fed's have grown into a monstrosity that controls our entire lives. We let that happen.
If you disagree, look at the current Syrian refugee debacle. Governor's and state Legislatures can scream they will not take any refugees in their state's, but most likely the fed's will win. How is that? The fed's have too much power.
The "authoritarians" in D.C. should have no say in whether a state or multiple states decide to leave the union. That decision should be up to the state's.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: Metallicus
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't see it happening.
What I think *should* happen is a voluntary dissolution of the USA as we know it -- and create several countries out of what is now the USA. There would be maybe 5-8 countries based on region, loosely affiliated in the same way the EU is. Trade/currency and and defense treaties like NATO.
I think we'd see more responsive and responsible government that way. Someone in Florida wouldn't be telling someone in Alaska how to manage their wildlife. The needs of someone in NYC are not anywhere close to those of someone in rural Nebraska.
Lets have government work for the people it represents instead of trying to be a jack of all trades, an average of none. Let's face it, the USA is to sprawling and diverse to represent us all in a meaningful and responsive manner.
I could agree to that, especially if us Socialists got to pick an area in the South for our city-state, particularly with access to the ocean. I hate cold weather & it's hard to create a real hippie-driven socialist utopia without warm weather, beaches, and tropical fruit.
The breakup wouldn't have to be violent or negative. People could just agree to disagree & go their own ways. We could even have "special relationships" with our former countrymen's new countries. That way, socialists wouldn't have to worry about capitalists hindering our plans & capitalists wouldn't have to worry about socialists hindering their plans. Win-win, right?
This is exactly what I envision. You are a good human who honestly believes in his Socialist ideals, but that is not how I want to live. Why should we have to fight when we can just agree to go our separate ways in peace and not force our incompatible lifestyles on each other?
I agree. Just don't change your mind & invade us, ok? lol I'd rather not have to allocate our money towards too much defense spending. Unless it's defense against diseases and a possible Klingon invasion.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Metallicus
If there would exist a place where there are more freedoms and less government, I might be encouraged.
originally posted by: Excallibacca
In the event we split into 3; West US, East US and Texas...sign me up for the Republic of Texas.
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: Excallibacca
In the event we split into 3; West US, East US and Texas...sign me up for the Republic of Texas.
What makes you think the Texans would want you?
How Nullification Works
When nullification enjoys either the indifference or support of a sizable portion of the local population, and is based on encouraging government inaction, it tends to work.
And this, apparently, is what the left understands. They know that the feds can only do so much to enforce federal law on their own, without help from local government. Yes, the feds have their own federal agents, but federal police forces are actually quite small compared to state and local police forces (unless, of course, the feds call in the military.)
Nullification's limitations
The reverse, however, does not work as well. That is, if nullification consists of requiring an active role for state and local officials, follow-through is a problem. For example, if states attempted to nullify Roe vs. Wade, they would run into trouble, because that sort of nullification would consist of actively shutting down physicians and abortion clinics. That’s different than simply refusing to take action.
But even “do nothing” attempts at nullification remain on very shaky legal ground. According to modern interpretations of the Constitution, there is no legal provision for state and local officials (including state courts) to refuse to enforce laws that modern constitutional scholars claim are part of “the law of the land.” And if they so choose, federal officials can still selectively enforce the law using their own agents.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: Excallibacca
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: Excallibacca
In the event we split into 3; West US, East US and Texas...sign me up for the Republic of Texas.
What makes you think the Texans would want you?
Fair point, my friend. I'm laughing out loud at that one.
But in seriousness I align pretty well with the stereotypical Texan. And I went hunting there last year...it was gorgeous.