Secession petitions now filed for all 50 states (1 Viewer)

[Jewell]

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

That was a somewhat popular sentiment pre-Civil War, too...

Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel: “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.” New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.” http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/04/do-states-have-a-right-of-secession/

 

[Schlzm]

If we think these people are whack jobs for wanting to secede, then we really need to stop celebrating July 4th given the Decleration of Independece begins with "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,"

No see that was all justified because monarchy = bad and the British are like the whitest of white people.Schlzm

Thanks for signing your post....I wasn't sure who posted it.

I'm here for YOU gb!Schlzm

 

[Yankee23Fan]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

Before 1861 I disagree. As I have said many times the states were promised they could back out as they had already done a couple of times. After 1865 you're right. This is a closed question. There is no mechanism for states to leave the compact now. Any attempt to do so is an illegal rebellion and should merit a military response.

So the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of those who drafted and ratified it changed between 1789 and 1865?

Maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution that specifically allows a state to leave the union. They never really got it in writing. Unless you want to make the tenther argument and that really won't get it done in this instance.

You're the one that suggested whether secession is constitutional changed.

No I said the states were promised they could walk away before ratification. I never said it was enshrined in the Constitution. I went on to say that promise was rendered moot with the outcome of the Civil War which made it clear there was no mechanism for the states to leave the Union.

There's evidence to suggest that ratifiers and drafters believed the right of secession extended post-ratification.Members of the Essex Junto, prominent New England politicians and lawyers alive at the time of ratification, believed the Constitution allowed them to secede. In response to their views Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), while not expressly granting the right of secession, hint at it.

It was never constitutional to do it. Ever. There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution to do it. If you want to argue some romantic notion of a god given right to upend government's when you don't like them, by all means, that's fine. And when you are talking about Constitutional law and the convention that created it, the worst person you could ever use as a source is Thomas Jefferson.

 

[NCCommish]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

Before 1861 I disagree. As I have said many times the states were promised they could back out as they had already done a couple of times. After 1865 you're right. This is a closed question. There is no mechanism for states to leave the compact now. Any attempt to do so is an illegal rebellion and should merit a military response.

So the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of those who drafted and ratified it changed between 1789 and 1865?

Maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution that specifically allows a state to leave the union. They never really got it in writing. Unless you want to make the tenther argument and that really won't get it done in this instance.

You're the one that suggested whether secession is constitutional changed.

No I said the states were promised they could walk away before ratification. I never said it was enshrined in the Constitution. I went on to say that promise was rendered moot with the outcome of the Civil War which made it clear there was no mechanism for the states to leave the Union.

There's evidence to suggest that ratifiers and drafters believed the right of secession extended post-ratification.Members of the Essex Junto, prominent New England politicians and lawyers alive at the time of ratification, believed the Constitution allowed them to secede. In response to their views Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), while not expressly granting the right of secession, hint at it.

I agree with that. I have had that argument with Yankee many times. But once the war was over it was a moot point.

 

[NCCommish]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

Before 1861 I disagree. As I have said many times the states were promised they could back out as they had already done a couple of times. After 1865 you're right. This is a closed question. There is no mechanism for states to leave the compact now. Any attempt to do so is an illegal rebellion and should merit a military response.

So the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of those who drafted and ratified it changed between 1789 and 1865?

Maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution that specifically allows a state to leave the union. They never really got it in writing. Unless you want to make the tenther argument and that really won't get it done in this instance.

You're the one that suggested whether secession is constitutional changed.

No I said the states were promised they could walk away before ratification. I never said it was enshrined in the Constitution. I went on to say that promise was rendered moot with the outcome of the Civil War which made it clear there was no mechanism for the states to leave the Union.

There's evidence to suggest that ratifiers and drafters believed the right of secession extended post-ratification.Members of the Essex Junto, prominent New England politicians and lawyers alive at the time of ratification, believed the Constitution allowed them to secede. In response to their views Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), while not expressly granting the right of secession, hint at it.

It was never constitutional to do it. Ever. There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution to do it. If you want to argue some romantic notion of a god given right to upend government's when you don't like them, by all means, that's fine. And when you are talking about Constitutional law and the convention that created it, the worst person you could ever use as a source is Thomas Jefferson.

They were promised they could back out. Some states made it implicit in their ratification. Plus more than a few people who were alive and part of the process wrote about the ability of the states to back out.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

Before 1861 I disagree. As I have said many times the states were promised they could back out as they had already done a couple of times. After 1865 you're right. This is a closed question. There is no mechanism for states to leave the compact now. Any attempt to do so is an illegal rebellion and should merit a military response.

So the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of those who drafted and ratified it changed between 1789 and 1865?

Maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution that specifically allows a state to leave the union. They never really got it in writing. Unless you want to make the tenther argument and that really won't get it done in this instance.

You're the one that suggested whether secession is constitutional changed.

No I said the states were promised they could walk away before ratification. I never said it was enshrined in the Constitution. I went on to say that promise was rendered moot with the outcome of the Civil War which made it clear there was no mechanism for the states to leave the Union.

There's evidence to suggest that ratifiers and drafters believed the right of secession extended post-ratification.Members of the Essex Junto, prominent New England politicians and lawyers alive at the time of ratification, believed the Constitution allowed them to secede. In response to their views Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), while not expressly granting the right of secession, hint at it.

I agree with that. I have had that argument with Yankee many times. But once the war was over it was a moot point.

Yeah, I'm not going there right now. Can I just refer to all the prior posts?

 

[Schlzm]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

 

[NCCommish]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

Before 1861 I disagree. As I have said many times the states were promised they could back out as they had already done a couple of times. After 1865 you're right. This is a closed question. There is no mechanism for states to leave the compact now. Any attempt to do so is an illegal rebellion and should merit a military response.

So the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of those who drafted and ratified it changed between 1789 and 1865?

Maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution that specifically allows a state to leave the union. They never really got it in writing. Unless you want to make the tenther argument and that really won't get it done in this instance.

You're the one that suggested whether secession is constitutional changed.

No I said the states were promised they could walk away before ratification. I never said it was enshrined in the Constitution. I went on to say that promise was rendered moot with the outcome of the Civil War which made it clear there was no mechanism for the states to leave the Union.

There's evidence to suggest that ratifiers and drafters believed the right of secession extended post-ratification.Members of the Essex Junto, prominent New England politicians and lawyers alive at the time of ratification, believed the Constitution allowed them to secede. In response to their views Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), while not expressly granting the right of secession, hint at it.

I agree with that. I have had that argument with Yankee many times. But once the war was over it was a moot point.

Yeah, I'm not going there right now. Can I just refer to all the prior posts?

You mean you don't want to do this again? Quitter Feel free to just refer to prior art.

 

[roadkill1292]

Eff that constitution.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

 

[NCCommish]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

 

[Jewell]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

Before 1861 I disagree. As I have said many times the states were promised they could back out as they had already done a couple of times. After 1865 you're right. This is a closed question. There is no mechanism for states to leave the compact now. Any attempt to do so is an illegal rebellion and should merit a military response.

So the meaning of the Constitution and the intent of those who drafted and ratified it changed between 1789 and 1865?

Maybe you can point out the part of the Constitution that specifically allows a state to leave the union. They never really got it in writing. Unless you want to make the tenther argument and that really won't get it done in this instance.

You're the one that suggested whether secession is constitutional changed.

No I said the states were promised they could walk away before ratification. I never said it was enshrined in the Constitution. I went on to say that promise was rendered moot with the outcome of the Civil War which made it clear there was no mechanism for the states to leave the Union.

There's evidence to suggest that ratifiers and drafters believed the right of secession extended post-ratification.Members of the Essex Junto, prominent New England politicians and lawyers alive at the time of ratification, believed the Constitution allowed them to secede. In response to their views Jefferson said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’

At Virginia’s ratification convention, the delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), while not expressly granting the right of secession, hint at it.

It was never constitutional to do it. Ever. There is no legal mechanism in the Constitution to do it. If you want to argue some romantic notion of a god given right to upend government's when you don't like them, by all means, that's fine. And when you are talking about Constitutional law and the convention that created it, the worst person you could ever use as a source is Thomas Jefferson.

Yeah, I'm not going there right now.Like NCC, I'll acknowledge our differences on the matter.

 

[Schlzm]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

I am glad you said those exact words. Interesting paper I just finished reading on the subject. I also wasn't really directing the comment at you, yank or a few others here who regularly debate such matters.Schlzm

 

[Gr00vus]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

I am glad you said those exact words. Interesting paper I just finished reading on the subject. I also wasn't really directing the comment at you, yank or a few others here who regularly debate such matters.Schlzm

That paper is awful

 

[Schlzm]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

I am glad you said those exact words. Interesting paper I just finished reading on the subject. I also wasn't really directing the comment at you, yank or a few others here who regularly debate such matters.Schlzm

That paper is awful

You definitely know more about the legalities and history here than I do. Schlzm

 

[NCCommish]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

I am glad you said those exact words. Interesting paper I just finished reading on the subject. I also wasn't really directing the comment at you, yank or a few others here who regularly debate such matters.Schlzm

That paper is awful

You definitely know more about the legalities and history here than I do. Schlzm

If you want to get him rolling talk nice about Jefferson. Yankee hates that.

 

[Gr00vus]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

I am glad you said those exact words. Interesting paper I just finished reading on the subject. I also wasn't really directing the comment at you, yank or a few others here who regularly debate such matters.Schlzm

That paper is awful

You definitely know more about the legalities and history here than I do. Schlzm

If you want to get him rolling talk nice about Jefferson. Yankee hates that.

George or John?

 

[NCCommish]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't support any real attempt at secession, but I find it highly amusing how suddenly people become strict constitutionalists in this specific debate yet are more than happy to keep it as a "living document" for most other items. Change is so ambiguous these days.

Schlzm

I'm not a strict Constitutionalist. But there is no mechanism for this to happen short of armed insurrection. That is just the reality of it.

I am glad you said those exact words. Interesting paper I just finished reading on the subject. I also wasn't really directing the comment at you, yank or a few others here who regularly debate such matters.Schlzm

That paper is awful

You definitely know more about the legalities and history here than I do. Schlzm

If you want to get him rolling talk nice about Jefferson. Yankee hates that.

George or John?

I think he likes George I was thinking Tom.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

But seriously, almost all of that "paper" is opinion and takes for fact stuff that simply isn't.

I get the basic argument for the south doing what they did, but the facts of the matter don't back it up. The problem I have always had with the south in the debates we have is that they don't need legal authority to do what they did. That's the rub many don't see. The south and its contemporary romantics want to cloth them in these lofty ideals of what government should be and what is just when the consent of the governed is there, but that also means that the government in and of itself need not be the institution that defines it to be right. If it's just and proper for the south to do what they did, it doesn't have to be, nor should they want it to be, constitutional, because on some level it gives authority to the constitution to make that call. They didn't need that.

If the south was right, then they were right. But what they did wasn't constitutional, nor did it have to be. And that is all I have ever argued. Revolution, rebellion, insurrection, revolt, all of it can and has been just in human history - and it could have been in that case as well. But it simply wouldn't have been legal/constitutional.

And yeah, Jefferson is the suck.

 

[Jewell]

If you want to get him rolling talk nice about Jefferson. Yankee hates that.

George or John?

Jefferson's moving argument

 

[Gr00vus]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

 

[NCCommish]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

 

[Koya]

I just hope at some of these lists have real names on them, so this can be used against the idiots who see an election go another way and then become so anti-American that they wish to leave the union. Hope it comes back to bite someone when they run for office, or law enforcement etc and they are stained by being an unpatriotic secessionist.

 

[Gr00vus]

A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

I agree. As I mentioned to Tim above, it's a rhetorical question and I'm just responding to the hypothetical because I find it a more interesting discussion than the ridicule of the people currently engaged in tantruming.

 

[roadkill1292]

A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

I agree. As I mentioned to Tim above, it's a rhetorical question and I'm just responding to the hypothetical because I find it a more interesting discussion than the ridicule of the people currently engaged in tantruming.

Well, it's hard to top ridiculing the people who have gone off the deep end but future secession negotiations are indeed pretty interesting in their own right.

 

[TPW]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

The people on your side threatened to leave the country, not secede, with Canada or Europe the favorite destinations.That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

 

[NCCommish]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

The people on your side threatened to leave the country, not secede, with Canada or Europe the favorite destinations.That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

Complete load of crap. They want to live in some mythical America that never existed. These are the same idiots who carry signs like "keep the government out of my Medicare". Low information yokels who can't stand that the country rejected their homophobic, bend over for the rich philosophy and re-elected the scary black man.

 

[TPW]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

The people on your side threatened to leave the country, not secede, with Canada or Europe the favorite destinations.That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

Complete load of crap. They want to live in some mythical America that never existed. These are the same idiots who carry signs like "keep the government out of my Medicare". Low information yokels who can't stand that the country rejected their homophobic, bend over for the rich philosophy and re-elected the scary black man.

What's never existed is the socialist utopia to which we continue to strive in vain. How many trillions of dollars, individual freedoms, and lives will continue to be wasted on the great progressive road to nowhere? How far will you go to subjugate those whom you label stupid, greedy, and racist but for some unfathomable, contradictory reason are absolutely dead set on keeping around as fellow citizens?I guess we'll find out.

 

[Apple Jack]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

The people on your side threatened to leave the country, not secede, with Canada or Europe the favorite destinations.That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

Complete load of crap. They want to live in some mythical America that never existed. These are the same idiots who carry signs like "keep the government out of my Medicare". Low information yokels who can't stand that the country rejected their homophobic, bend over for the rich philosophy and re-elected the scary black man.

 

[NCCommish]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.Go in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

The people on your side threatened to leave the country, not secede, with Canada or Europe the favorite destinations.That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

Complete load of crap. They want to live in some mythical America that never existed. These are the same idiots who carry signs like "keep the government out of my Medicare". Low information yokels who can't stand that the country rejected their homophobic, bend over for the rich philosophy and re-elected the scary black man.

What's never existed is the socialist utopia to which we continue to strive in vain. How many trillions of dollars, individual freedoms, and lives will continue to be wasted on the great progressive road to nowhere? How far will you go to subjugate those whom you label stupid, greedy, and racist but for some unfathomable, contradictory reason are absolutely dead set on keeping around as fellow citizens?I guess we'll find out.

I am a Liberal. Not some weak kneed progressive. A died in the wool, union loving, tree hugging, homosexual agenda cheering, make pot legal liberal. We are not even close to being a socialist country and Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He is a third way Democrat. That means he is what used to be called a moderate Republican. He would go down in history as the worst socialist ever if that is what he was. But he isn't.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

Sounds like they have been smoking stuff they want to keep illegal.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I am a Liberal. Not some weak kneed progressive. A died in the wool, union loving, tree hugging, homosexual agenda cheering, make pot legal liberal. We are not even close to being a socialist country and Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He is a third way Democrat. That means he is what used to be called a moderate Republican. He would go down in history as the worst socialist ever if that is what he was. But he isn't.

You are actually a commie pinko, but you support the Fair Tax so when I take over you are ok.

 

[TPW]

I am a Liberal. Not some weak kneed progressive. A died in the wool, union loving, tree hugging, homosexual agenda cheering, make pot legal liberal. We are not even close to being a socialist country and Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He is a third way Democrat. That means he is what used to be called a moderate Republican. He would go down in history as the worst socialist ever if that is what he was. But he isn't.

You're a progressive. Own it.I didn't call Obama a socialist. I said he is the latest manfestation of the progressive movement which stretches back 100 years. The end goal though is unquestionably a socialist society or something so close to it as to not matter. If that means a little crony capitalism and bending the rules along the way in order to get things done, so be it. The ends justify the means.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Jughandles are stupid.That is all.

Why let all the old people turning left block up the fast lane?-QG

So you confuse them by telling them to turn left from the right lane? Left turn lanes and circles do a fine job of getting people to go left. We don't need left turn lanes on the right side. Freakin New Jersey.

That's where the helpful "All Turns" signs come in.Ya gotta go right to go left -QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

-QG

 

[NCCommish]

I am a Liberal. Not some weak kneed progressive. A died in the wool, union loving, tree hugging, homosexual agenda cheering, make pot legal liberal. We are not even close to being a socialist country and Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He is a third way Democrat. That means he is what used to be called a moderate Republican. He would go down in history as the worst socialist ever if that is what he was. But he isn't.

You're a progressive. Own it.I didn't call Obama a socialist. I said he is the latest manfestation of the progressive movement which stretches back 100 years. The end goal though is unquestionably a socialist society or something so close to it as to not matter. If that means a little crony capitalism and bending the rules along the way in order to get things done, so be it. The ends justify the means.

I am not a progressive. That's liberal lite. I am the real deal.

 

[NCCommish]

I am a Liberal. Not some weak kneed progressive. A died in the wool, union loving, tree hugging, homosexual agenda cheering, make pot legal liberal. We are not even close to being a socialist country and Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He is a third way Democrat. That means he is what used to be called a moderate Republican. He would go down in history as the worst socialist ever if that is what he was. But he isn't.

You are actually a commie pinko, but you support the Fair Tax so when I take over you are ok.

So I got that going for me, which is nice.

 

[Jewell]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

-QG

Let's take it outside the confines of the U.S. so that we can get away from constitutionality and can instead talk about just the universal concept of secession. Say, hypothetically, a vote was taken and 90% of Québécois want to secede from Canada. Quebec's politicians are on board. Should Quebec be allowed to secede from Canada or should the Canadian government use force against the Québécois to keep millions of them as part of Canada against their will?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

-QG

Let's take it outside the confines of the U.S. so that we can get away from constitutionality and can instead talk about just the universal concept of secession. Say, hypothetically, a vote was taken and 90% of Québécois want to secede from Canada. Quebec's politicians are on board. Should Quebec be allowed to secede from Canada or should the Canadian government use force against the Québécois to keep millions of them as part of Canada against their will?

Before I can answer this I need to know if the Canada pavilion at World Showcase, EPCOT, Walk Disney World would be affected in any way. If the menu or anything else at Le'Cellier is hanging in the balance, I'm not gonna be happy.But to the larger question, I don't know if Canada has some kind of legal structure that would make simply allowing a province to declare its own independence would be considered legal or not, but it shouldn't matter. If that form of revolution is just, the recognition of the government that you are rebelling from is not something that is needed. Would I be part of the American public that supports Quebec? Probably not. Again, see argument, Disney. We have to be careful about seeking the end to western governments and countries, especially with the current state of world affairs. I think. Still, it is only Canada.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Of course if Quebec actually does secede from Canada, the maritime provinces are up for grabs

-QG

 

[Jewell]

To the anti-secession people. Are there any grounds on which you would agree with secession or is secession unconstitutional and should be prohibited regardless of the grounds or the percentage of people that support it?

It's unconstitutional and an illegal attempt at rebellion that should be put down with military force if necessary if anyone actually tried to do it beyond signing an online petition void of any context (not to mention a complete lack of any common sense by the people signing the petition).

-QG

Let's take it outside the confines of the U.S. so that we can get away from constitutionality and can instead talk about just the universal concept of secession. Say, hypothetically, a vote was taken and 90% of Québécois want to secede from Canada. Quebec's politicians are on board. Should Quebec be allowed to secede from Canada or should the Canadian government use force against the Québécois to keep millions of them as part of Canada against their will?

Before I can answer this I need to know if the Canada pavilion at World Showcase, EPCOT, Walk Disney World would be affected in any way. If the menu or anything else at Le'Cellier is hanging in the balance, I'm not gonna be happy.But to the larger question, I don't know if Canada has some kind of legal structure that would make simply allowing a province to declare its own independence would be considered legal or not, but it shouldn't matter. If that form of revolution is just, the recognition of the government that you are rebelling from is not something that is needed. Would I be part of the American public that supports Quebec? Probably not. Again, see argument, Disney.

We have to be careful about seeking the end to western governments and countries, especially with the current state of world affairs. I think. Still, it is only Canada.

Therein lies the beauty. Canada would still exist as a country, but now so would Quebec. "The Western World... Now with even more countries!!"

 

[Thunderlips]

I guess we just fundamentally disagree that people would be unwilling to fight to keep our country together.

I'm not really interested in fighting to retain people/states that are set on having a fundamentalist theocratic government that has little to no safety net for the less fortunate/ill, no regulation of corporations, no protection of the environment and want to establish a society based on belief/faith rather than science.iGo in peace.

Except that there is not a single state in this nation in which the views you just described are held by a majority of the residents. And even if it was true that a majority believed this, what about the minority who doesn't? They deserve ourprotection as Americans, don't they?

It's a rhetorical question in the first place Timstein. My comment is directed at the hypothetical in which there is such a state/majority of people. Your minority can move to a state remaining in the Union if that's their wish.That said - we're all for democracy and self determination around here, up and until somebody doesn't want to be part of the Union anymore. Seems hypocritical to me.

Seems more like common sense to me. First off there are few states in this country that could stand alone economically. Maybe California. Maybe NY. But pretty much every state in on the let us go march would be the same as it was in the great Depression in short order. They are the biggest takers of federal money. It's what keeps them going. If they seceded they'd be empty in fairly short time between the people who couldn't get food and the people tired of no government services.

Me too. I'm just saying if they get to a place where they really, really, really, really want to do it, who are we to stop them? They're adults, they can suffer the consequences or maybe even reap the benefits. I'm not going to try to kill them to convince/coerce them to stay put - it's not right and it's not worth it.

But they don't really really really want to. A relative handful of people are doing the same stupid crap some people on my side did after W got re-elected. Throwing a temper tantrum. It's stupid. It's not deserving of being treated with anything like respect. A few thousand out of millions isn't a movement it's a statistical bump.

The people on your side threatened to leave the country, not secede, with Canada or Europe the favorite destinations.That's the fundamental difference between the secession folks and yours. They don't want to be like Europe or anywhere else. They want to live in the society they grew up in and not have it transformed into something unreconizable. If that means separating from the rest of the nation and its self-destructive ways, so be it.

What they want to implement is not what they grew up in.

 

[lod01]

Texas you gotta go but Austin gets to stay.

A counter-petition has been filed calling for the state capital Austin to secede from Texas and remain part of the United States.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Secession petitions now filed for all 50 states

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

maybe we should just go with 50 sovereign states.

 

[Mister CIA]

Of course if Quebec actually does secede from Canada, the maritime provinces are up for grabs -QG

Dibs on Nova Scotia.

 

[fatness]

Texas has 28,000 signatures!



The population is just under 26,000,000.

Roughly one out of every 915.

Oh, yeah, this has got legs.

Complete list of 1860 slave-holding states who have not filed:

Virginia

Breitbart

Secession: Confederacy of Dunces Plays Into Media's Hands

In the wake of a brutal election loss, some of us are disappointed and want to lodge a protest -- I'm not unsympathetic to that, I get it, I really do. I got it in 2000 and in 2004 when my favorite sport was mocking left-wing movie stars who threatened to flee the country after Bush won. But therein lies the point: If conservatives are going to mock the disappointed who want to flee the country after an election loss, shouldn't we be doing the same thing now?

While it's not fair, sometimes we really do have to take responsibility for our own and even those who claim to be our allies. Because if we don't, the left-wing media's going to do it for us. But only after it's too late and we've walked into the trap.

Step 1: Some who share some of our political views overreact and do something dumb.

Step 2: The left-wing media picks it up and turns it into a mainstream story -- a trap.

Step 3: The trap works because the media exposure brings it to the attention of a bigger audience and suddenly 675,000 on our side overreact and do the same dumb thing.

Step 4: Some on our side, while not agreeing with secession, treat the idea as something worthy of discussion. Now the issue has even more attention and even a whiff of credibility.

Step 5: Now that hundreds of thousands are doing this dumb thing, the media and left (but I repeat myself) use this dumb thing to tarnish and marginalize the Right as a whole.

Step 6: Just like with the Birther movement, suddenly, the only sound bite that comes out of Eric Cantor's appearance on "Meet the Press" has nothing to do with his intelligent, logical, and fiscally sound thoughts on tax increases -- instead, it's his never quite exactly suitable denunciation of the secession movement.

Step 7: It's Katy bar the door with Right's "secession problem" and all the racial connotations that go along with it.

Step 8: Here we go again.

How many Americans have died to protect this country and to keep us united? But what… because we lost a couple of elections and gained an ObamaCare we're going to grab our marbles and crybaby all the way home to Texahomastan? Wanting to cut and run from the fight for your country is cowardice.

 

[fatness]

Nice ignorant oversimplification. Do not mistake compassion for weakness. If you honestly believe that "liberals" aren't as capable of violence as any other human being given a certain set of circumstances, you're not a very good student of history. Or are you claiming that this whole secession deal is going to be squeaky clean?

If we think these people are whack jobs for wanting to secede, then we really need to stop celebrating July 4th given the Decleration of Independece begins with "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,"

Do you guys laugh out loud when you type things like this? Because other people laugh when they read them.