Current Supreme Court precedent, in Texas v. White, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state.[2] More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."[3]
Still, tongues are wagging about a #Texit as well. Neither will never happen, IMHO.
I've tried sometimes to point out to people that States can secede, divide into parts, transfer parts from one to the other[1] or devolve. It merely requires an act of congress and the state in question. This usually induces frothing at the mouth though[2].
[1] More recently California and Arizona exchanged some bits the better to align the state boundaries with the Colorado river. It required a number of years of negotiations, and then Arizona, California, and the Federal government had to pass legislation.
[2] I think secessionists dislike the idea that leaving in theory is easy. Because it's a tell that there isn't any real support for their position.
I believe what's implicit in these arguments is the word "unilaterally."
It remains illegal for a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. (North v. South, 1865)
The article above implies that Mr. Marinelli is targeting Californians with his "Yes California" campaign. If he wishes to succeed/secede, he'll need to convince Americans from all over the place that it's a good idea.
I didnt read article but this makes zero sense, i didnt want to justify its existence with a click.
Its apples and oranges. California is part of the united states, a country. Uk was part of an organization of countries.
Most importantly, the EU treaties had an exit clause - the US constitution does not. In fact, remember what happened last time some states tried to exit the US?
Stereotypes are fun. Stupid Southerners with their bibles and guns. See: That was fun. I'm glad we could share this moment.
Anyway, yeah, there's plenty of lunacy in the South. Which is something that could probably be said of any part of the world with ~100m people. And it contains some depressed and poverty-stricken areas which deserve help rather than derision. But I think it's lazy thinking to believe that they're "dragging down the rest of the nation."
Sorry.
It's cool, though. You'll one day meet a Southerner and realize that, for the most part, they're just like normal people!
I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear. For the record, I've met Southerners and they're all nice and reasonable people. (You know what they say about Southern hospitality.)
I was referring to each state as a whole, and especially those politicians at the top. My post did not indicate that, and I do apologize if I offended.
I'm not offended, I just don't think it's useful to think of even states as monolithic blocks, even if prominent politicians hailing from there are sacks of shit.
(Actually, I think it's useful for entertainment value and that's about it. Fuckin' Florida, amirite?)
I'm actually more annoyed by the us-versus-them-ism. "'Those People' are nutty and bad. Dragging 'Us People' down." It's dismissive.
And the United States is unlikely to break up any time soon -- and unlikely to start kicking out states with weak economies like Mississippi. So if you really think some things about those areas are, in fact, dragging down the country, maybe a helpful action would be to support policies that would help people in those areas. Or take direct action via an organization like Teach For America. A lot of the stereotypes you list stem from a mix of lack of education and general fear about getting by. Those things are correctable.
I'm not sure that's fair. The reason there was a Civil War at all was in large part that the North didn't think secession from the union was legal. They wanted the South to be part of the USA from the beginning, and I don't think ever regarded them as or recognized them as another nation.
And the way the South was treated during reconstruction doesn't suggest the South had any say on the matter in the end.
I'm not contesting any of those views, I am saying that the costs to the North were significant and the drain of resources caused by the poorer South continues to be significant.
Using the civil war to justify another military action against a portion of the country that simply votes out would be an example of learning nothing from the past.
No. The founders of the US were so nervous about abuses of the term "treason" by tyrannical governments that they defined the term in the text of the Constitution. Advocacy of secession has never been treasonous, and is protected by the 1st Amendment.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
and as an example of the nervousness, in Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote:
"But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author."
Current Supreme Court precedent, in Texas v. White, holds that the states cannot secede from the union by an act of the state.[2] More recently, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede."[3]
Still, tongues are wagging about a #Texit as well. Neither will never happen, IMHO.
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrt01
http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/uploaded_im...