• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should states have the right to secede?

Secession from the USA

  • Total voters
    33
Henrin said:
Why is it that people don't want to fight people that want to kill us but at the same time want to kill people that just don't want to be part of the union anymore and want no harm to come to anyone? If anyone has an answer I will listen.

Why not just let them leave and help them get started as a country instead?
Click to expand...

Find some land that doesn't belong to this country, or any other country and they can do that.
 
Your Star said:
Find some land that doesn't belong to this country, or any other country and they can do that.
Click to expand...

Which question is that answering?

We are a nation of nations. The land of the state owns to the state first. :) The federal government just has a select amount of governing power granted to them by the union. It doesn't have any sort of ownership of the land.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
much of the Republics of the USSR was already part of the Russian Empire, which was consolidated by the power of the gun and the cannon.

and anyway, did the Republics of the USSR have democratic and elected state legislatures that ALL ratified becoming part of the Soviet Union?

no, no they did not.
Click to expand...
And your point is? :roll:

.
 
Your Star said:
The only way a state should be able to secede is if they can beat the US military in a revolt against our government. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
One state maybe, but my guess is that if all of the old confederate states said, "we're out of here", the rest of the states would not have the stomach to do a damn thing militarily. :doh

.
 
Henrin said:
Which question is that answering?

We are a nation of nations. The land of the state owns to the state first. :) The federal government just has a select amount of governing power granted to them by the union. It doesn't have any sort of ownership of the land.
Click to expand...

We are not under the Articles of Confederation, and it has been well established that the individual states have no right to secede, and the federal government has the right to stop the state from acting as it's own nation.
 
Thunder said:
The Constitution of the United States of America was ratified by the democratically-elected legislatures of the 13 Colonies, was it not?
Click to expand...
I don't really know or care but even if true, your point is.... :roll:

.
 
BDBoop said:
It hardly feels like a Union anymore. Should states be able to take a vote and secede if they wish? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
Sure and I have a list of states whose papers I'm willing to fill out.
 
TOJ said:
I don't really know or care but even if true, your point is.... :roll:
Click to expand...

you sarcastically asked if the states of the former USSR should be forced to rejoin with Russia.

TOJ said:
So should the republics of the former USSR be forced to rejoin?
Click to expand...


I am pointed out that unlike the Republics of the former USSR, the 13 States of the Union had democratically-elected legislatures who voted in favor of ratifying the Constitution.

please..please tell me you understand the difference.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
We are not under the Articles of Confederation
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking as if we were. The country was formed as nation of nations, and the land that is the states is the property of the state first, and the federal government has no ownership of that land. That applies beyond the Articles of Confederation.

..and it has been well established that the individual states have no right to secede, and the federal government has the right to stop the state from acting as it's own nation.
Click to expand...

By the courts, yes. What I am talking about is how it was formed and why the states agreed to join, which in the face of what the court said on the topic in the 1860's
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
100% incorrect. and silly.
Click to expand...

No its not silly or incorrect. You can perfectly join a union for common causes and still be a nation yourself. That is what America originally was more or less. The commerce clause you so love to rape wasn't meant for the fed to control commerce but way for them to keep piece in commerce between the members of the union. Sorry to burst your 1880-present bubble. :)

Like I said earlier when the states joined they agreed to give up some of their sovereignty for a bit of protection of the federal government. The fed would control the military, they would control trade with other nations, and the states would handle the majority of the rest. It was never intended that the fed would order around the states on everyday manners like what you see today. It was never meant that the states would simply be treated like they were owned by the federal government and told they could never leave like they were simply slaves.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
No its not silly or incorrect. You can perfectly join a union for common causes and still be a nation yourself. That is what America originally was more or less.
Click to expand...


so, The United States was a union of individual nations?

you know, I've read a lot about my state of New York. I never read about us having our own Foreign Minister, or currency, or foreign policy, or immigration policy, or the right to limit travel from other states...after 1787.

dude...your assertion is silly, stupid, crazy, and lazy.
 
Thunder said:
so, The United States was a union of individual nations?

you know, I've read a lot about my state of New York. I never read about us having our own Foreign Minister, or currency, or foreign policy, or immigration policy, or the right to limit travel from other states...after 1787.

dude...your assertion is silly, stupid, crazy, and lazy.
Click to expand...

I said they gave up certain abilities when they joined the union. Just because they did this doesn't mean they weren't nations and treated as such. Don't be daft.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I said they gave up certain abilities when they joined the union. Just because they did this doesn't mean they weren't nations and treated as such. Don't be daft.
Click to expand...

suggesting that we were seperate nations, part of a larger nation, is silly and simply incorrect.

did the States have the power to sign treaties? did they have the power to print currency?

did they have the power to set foreign policy?

did they have the power to limit travel from neighboring states?

did they have a foreign minister? did they have the power to set immigration policy?

what normal powers of a soveriegn nation, did the states have?

none? thought not.
 
The political theorist and idealist in me says, the states should absolutely have the right to secede. Self determination is considered a basic fundemental right by most people in the West. Our own nation is based on the concept that the consent of the governed in crucial to the legitimacy of any government.

However, the realist in me recognizes that those rights are only applied by groups with suffcient military power to defend those rights from the government they seek to secede from or have allies/benefactors who will use their military might to defend that right. Allowing the South to secede, while it may have satisfied some theoretical purist view on the right of self determination, would've been disasterous for this country. The Federal government, which is charged with looking after the best interests of the nation, was correct to refuse to allow secession and put an end to it by force of arms.
 
Thunder said:
suggesting that we were seperate nations, part of a larger nation, is silly and simply incorrect.

did the States have the power to sign treaties? did they have the power to print currency?

did they have the power to set foreign policy?

did they have the power to limit travel from neighboring states?

did they have a foreign minister? did they have the power to set immigration policy?

what normal powers of a soveriegn nation, did the states have?

none? thought not.
Click to expand...

The individual colonies issued their own currency before and during the Revolutionary War. They also each individually declared war on England. So they did at one time have soverieng control of currency and foreign affairs. National immigration policy was simply unheard of that time, so it's not even a point woth bringing up. The US didn't have a real federal immigration restrictions until the mid 19th century.

The Articles of the Confederation, which were not ratified until 1781, says "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." Which clearly states the states were soverign entities entering into a "perpetual Union". The states were clearly sovereign entities who volunatarily entered into a union and gave up portions of their soveriegnty in doing so, but with the understanding that the remainder of their soverignty would be preserved and respected.
 
The Articles of Confederation died when the Constitution was ratified.
 
Some of the general hilarity in this thread reminded me of this story from the Onion ...

South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


My favorite paragraphs:

The Deep South states of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee consistently rank at the bottom of the nation in a wide variety of statistical categories, including literacy, infant mortality, hospital beds, toilet-paper sales, and shoe usage. Even so, some experts believe the region could be poised for a renaissance.

"The way things stand, things in the Deep South almost have to get better. Otherwise, the people who live there will devolve into preverbal, overall-wearing sub-morons within a century," said Professor Dennis Lassiter of Princeton University. "Either Southerners will start improving themselves, or they'll be sold to middle-class Asians as pets."
Click to expand...

lolz

As for the West, where this 'secession' nonsense is equally popular, it's worth noting that most of the West would still be uninhabitable without massive Federal subsidies, even today. LA and southern California is essentially a giant gravel pit, and Imperial Valley is a dust pile without Hoover Dam and massive water projects that steal water from Colorado and other states. Same for most of Texas and the Plains states.

Ironic, isn't it ...
 
Yes, I'm well aware of that, but the AoC were around before the Constitution and they clearly indicate the states were sovereign entities who voluntarily formed a union. Thunder was trying to suggest the states were never soveriegn and that is clearly not true. If the AoC states the states retained their soveriegnty while joining the union, then clearly they had to be considered sovereign before joining the union.
 
Psychoclown said:
Yes, I'm well aware of that, but the AoC were around before the Constitution and they clearly indicate the states were sovereign entities who voluntarily formed a union. Thunder was trying to suggest the states were never soveriegn and that is clearly not true. If the AoC states the states retained their soveriegnty while joining the union, then clearly they had to be considered sovereign before joining the union.
Click to expand...

True, but it doesn't matter now.
 
Any state that secedes will be literally burned to the ground. -Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman.
 
I would say that north, south, east, and west, within the CONUS then no...there should be no secession (a divided country within a country is just silly). I think we should boot the territories and call Hawaii's bluff. We dont need them strategically and thats the only reason why they are territories in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom