Is Secession Inevitable?

reply to post by Rockpuck


You are very much mistaken. Secession is very much illegal. Revolution is not. There is a difference. A revolution with the intent of altering or abolishing the former/current government is a natural right as defined in the Declaration of Independence. HOWEVER, secession with the goal of forming a separate government is illegal.

reply to post by SG-17


...A Revolution can be part of a Secession of States. For instance, in the American Revolutionary War the revolution was to remove a portion of the country from the British which claimed it as their own. That would be no different than Cascadia (Oregon, Washington and Northern California) seceding and having their own Revolution.

A revolution is when the revolters are the victors of a Civil War. Had the south won the war it would have been their Revolution. Since they lost it's called a Civil War. The very nature of a revolt, an uprising, a civil war etc is to be treasonous. And since treason is against the law, the very nature of a revolt is illegal.

MY point is this: Regardless if it's "illegal" you cannot place a law on a Natural Right to self determination. For instance Congress could limit media, restrict free speech and ban the practice of religion. It'd be against the law. But it would be fundamentally wrong, a violation of a natural Human rights.

Sorry ATS freaked out and double posted.....

reply to post by Rockpuck


Actually the 13 colonies were a separate legislated entity in the British Parliament from the other crown colonies.


Also, the Confederate States of America was not a revolution. If it was, they would have focused on toppling Lincoln in DC instead of forming their own nation.

reply to post by SG-17




Right.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

The majority of the 26 States that are against the Health Care Bill are some of the poorest states in the Union.

Good luck with that secession...hell...it may even be good to drop some dead weight.

Throwing out a few things that keep the people of the states tied to the federal government and would make secession especially difficult. But they all revert back to one thing: employment. Employers deduct taxes from worker's paychecks directly and forward the money to the feds; also medical coverage is generally a "benefit" provided by employers. Then there's FICA which is also demanded by employers Seems these things would have to go before states could become suitably capitalized and independent/autonomous.

Maybe what we need is a nationwide worker's revolution to trim the sails of the federal government AND the rapacious insurance industry.

Well, its a start ...

Originally posted by frazzle
Throwing out a few things that keep the people of the states tied to the federal government and would make secession especially difficult. But they all revert back to one thing: employment. Employers deduct taxes from worker's paychecks directly and forward the money to the feds; also medical coverage is generally a "benefit" provided by employers. Then there's FICA which is also demanded by employers Seems these things would have to go before states could become suitably capitalized and independent/autonomous.

Maybe what we need is a nationwide worker's revolution to trim the sails of the federal government AND the rapacious insurance industry.

Well, its a start ...

So the poorest people in the poorest states who allegedly would have the most to gain from the ACA are the ones who are against it?

You've got some 'splainin to do Lucy.

Isn't Texas the only state that is (and that is even disputed) able to secede? I cannot imagine most states even attempting to do this.

Originally posted by LauraBow
Isn't Texas the only state that is (and that is even disputed) able to secede? I cannot imagine most states even attempting to do this.

Nope,

A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

www.etymonline.com...

It is my understanding that some states that joined the US later had similar stipulations, but I don't know which ones. That's why I think the path to secession lies in an international contract dispute and seeking UN recognition, rather than trying to fight the US military. Of course, the US has a tendency to walk out of the World Court when a ruling doesn't go thier way, and the America's veto power on the Security Council would make UN recognition tough.

Originally posted by LauraBow
Isn't Texas the only state that is (and that is even disputed) able to secede? I cannot imagine most states even attempting to do this.

I believe they have the right to divide into five states, not to secede. Snopes says this is true

Originally posted by LauraBow
Isn't Texas the only state that is (and that is even disputed) able to secede? I cannot imagine most states even attempting to do this.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a State is bound permanently to the Union.

I think secession would actually be healthy, because this is not...