Is Secession Legal?

a reply to: Freeborn

The common will of the people tends to get over-ridden now. That's part of the reason the SCOTUS battles are so heated.

If the people vote one way, certain groups don't like it, they take to the courts to override that vote and there is no appealing that once it goes.

It's called lawfare.

a reply to: Freeborn

single state no, not a chance no one state has enough natural resources or military defense capabilities to manage to stand it alone. (texas is the closest but even they would eventually collapse)

Funnily enough I could see us splitting in to similar to the CSA, with more of a conservative/Liberal leadership but I think that would eventually fall as well.

Best case in my eyes at least would be more along the lines of nation states under a limited big govt to handle international relations, but thats a pipe dream that died sometime after the civil war as well.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Freeborn

single state no, not a chance no one state has enough natural resources or military defense capabilities to manage to stand it alone. (texas is the closest but even they would eventually collapse)

I'm not sure that's the end-all, be-all of secession that most people think it is. There are plenty of individual nations around the world that don't have the natural resources or defensive capabilities to stand on their own, but they do so because there is such things as trade and alliances. And yeah I get they're technically not "on their own" then, but they are individual nations and can be successful.

There's even a political phenomenon called the "resource curse" where countries that are blessed with lots of natural resources tend to have a lot of problems. It's not a rule, it's not guaranteed, but neither is it guaranteed that countries with few resources will fail.

a reply to: face23785

But most of those (lichenstein as an example) have been around a long time, have long standing alliances in place, and have found a niche to make themselves valuable without being worth taking by force and suffering the political blow back.

a reply to: face23785

I didn't suggest otherwise.

I know you didn't, I was just pointing it out.

Pretty much anything devised by man has failings, not just political systems.

Too true....apart from beer.

I'm not necessarily saying that in such a scenario that I mentioned that a state should be allowed to secede from The Union I'm just asking hypothetical questions and sort of playing devils advocate.

I doubt any state will actually seek to leave, individuals yes.....maybe even a relatively large numbers of people.
But not in such numbers that would be a significant force for secession.

But the prospect does sort of intrigue me and I like seeing people's reactions and responses.

a reply to: Freeborn

Idk. IPAs are disgusting.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nor do I expect that support to arise. It's interesting though that from what I know of these petitions in our state and those in California, it's our conservative voters who are pushing these moves to Balkanization.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, the Dems have strategized. There are those on both sides of this divide that are reaching these conclusions. Both to me seem to be searching for the easy way out rather than the harder course of learning about the humanity of the ''other side''. That for me is our challenge, to mature and learn to work together.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

good to hear. Actually, that would be a fine thread on it's own. Balkanization, pro and con.

You may see states *try* to secede. Those machinations being pushed by Democrats and Governors who control the more "liberal" states. But when you look at the representation on a more granular level, you see this:



The federal government will not allow those citizens to be disenfranchised of their US rights and freedoms just because the Democrats "in charge" have decided to take a certain position. Same could be said about any "popular vote referendum." The cities are more heavily populated and don't get to control the direction of the country, no matter how much the democrats try to say they should.

ETA - this doesn't even take into account the illegal vote or voter fraud.

a reply to: CIAGypsy



Sure , if you get Enough Self Centered Lazy Pucks to Actually Care about your Cause . I am STILL Waiting for South New Jersey Declaring Secession from North New Jersey , and No , I am Not Holding My Breath Until it Actually Happens........(

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Bruh, my family in California has been on the same merry-go-round....

I would also have to say that if we get to the point where a state government decides to go all-in and secede from the Federal government for whatever reason, I don't think they'll care much if it's legal or not at that point.

Look at what has been happening in cities when it comes to the tacit support of the rioting and looting. Technically, that's not legal, but the city governments and some DAs have been lending tacit support and even not-so-hidden legal aid to rioters.

At that point, they don't care because they don't believe there will be repercussions, or they believe they have enough backing to protect them from whatever other authorities are nominally in charge.

And notice I said government, not the people. I don't think what the people in the state want will matter too much, so long as the state authorities believe they have control over their people and don't think they'll face any real resistance to what they do.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Don't show em that map. It'll just give them more to self-victimize over. They say "That totally shows why we have to get rid of the electoral college. It's just. not. FAIR!!! We modern people, living in modern cities are isolated and underrepresented. We have more people per capita than those in the rural areas. It's not our fault they want to be bumpkins and live poor."

originally posted by: Freeborn

Would the USA respect The Right to Self-Determination or would it supress democracy?

It didn't last time. The southern states seceded via a vote of their respective legislatures which were elected by the people. t wasn't a direct vote of the citizens, but my impression is that those legislatures had broad public support. Lincoln declared the secession illegal, then supported West Virginia in its (successful) effort to seceded from Virginia. Hmmm.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Don't show em that map. It'll just give them more to self-victimize over. They say "That totally shows why we have to get rid of the electoral college. It's just. not. FAIR!!! We modern people, living in modern cities are isolated and underrepresented. We have more people per capita than those in the rural areas. It's not our fault they want to be bumpkins and live poor."

What is "fairness"? You sound like a little kid not getting his way so he says "It isn't fair." Here's what isn't fair:



"Democracy" is two wolves and a lamb voting for what is for lunch. We are a Republic. You "modern people" living in cities live crammed together in a jungle of lawlessness where crime is rampant and no one is safe in their own homes. Look at crime statistics for any large city in America. It's appalling.

a reply to: schuyler

I think you failed to realize it was sarcasm.