12Th Aoff And State Succession Petitions?

[thesometimesaint]

It cost the US more to keep Subic Bay Navel Yards and Clark AFB, after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, than they were worth. Technology, and Pearl Harbor made Subic Bay irrelevant militarily, and a volcano destroyed Clark AFB. The people of the Philippines have never expressed any desire to be a State of the United States of America.

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

In this case it is a member of one state asking that their state be allowed to peacefully secede, no one is asking the government dissolve itself, If all the states request secession them the government would be dissolved by default, but that is not the fault of the individual state requesting independence.

If the government "says no" then they can either let it go at that (the most likely outcome since I don't believe anyone is serious about secession) or they can seek independence via armed conflict (very unlikely in this case)

That makes absolutely no sense. For a state to ask to secede would be asking that one government dissolve another government. In effect becoming another country within a country.

[Stargazer]

It cost the US more to keep Subic Bay Navel Yards and Clark AFB, after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, than they were worth. Technology, and Pearl Harbor made Subic Bay irrelevant militarily, and a volcano destroyed Clark AFB. The people of the Philippines have never expressed any desire to be a State of the United States of America.

Not sure how this is relevant. The Phillipines were a conquest of the Spanish-American War, and the US began the administration of the islands with the expectation and goal that they would become an independent country -- a process that was interrupted by WW2, but completed afterwards -- and I don't think anyone seriously proposed statehood for The Phillipines.

[thesometimesaint]

Stargazer:

From Wiki...The Philippines has a small grassroots movement for U.S. statehood^{[citation needed]} . Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change.^[17][18] As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines.^[19] Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there will be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state; or at the least, an American territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.^[20][21]

Various suggestions for Philippine statehood have included its entry as a whole or the partial entry of the westernized north, leaving the predominantly Muslim parts of Mindanao to form its own country (see Moro National Liberation Front) or join Indonesia^{[citation needed]}. The movement initially had a significant impact during the early American colonial period;^[18] It is no longer a mainstream movement,^[22] but is a small social movement that gains interest and talk in that nation.^[23][24]

[Saints Alive]

Saints Alive:

That makes absolutely no sense. For a state to ask to secede would be asking that one government dissolve another government. In effect becoming another country within a country.

your statement makes no sense to me, I think we are talking past each other.

[bluebell]

It is also possible to make incorrect assumptions. I think you are making some incorrect assumptions.

I realize that, as i believe you are making incorrect assumptions as well.

My original argument had been that if a large enough majority of the people of the United States wanted to secede from the Union, and destroy the Constitution, they could do so using the democratic process at their disposal, without recourse to armed insurrection or revolution.

I know that is your argument, i just think it's very weak and is unsupported.

If a large enough majority of people were able to control the direction of the U.S. government to the extreme that you are suggesting, they would not need to secceed, as they would have the power to make the government exactly as they wanted it to be and would therefore not have to leave because they were unhappy with it.

Also, there is no logical reason for a president, per your example, to work to get himself elected on the platform that he will then allow 100% of his supporters to leave the country. Like i said, it would be political suicide.

Your response was that that was impossible, or that they wouldn't want to. I think that both of those are incorrect assumptions.

I know that's what you think. I've outlined why your disagreements aren't logical to me. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[TAO]

Bluebell, I think an idealist could work himself in such a position. Someobody committed to letting the states go their own way could become President simply to allow that to happen.

It's not at all likely though.

Edited November 27, 2012 by TAO

[mathonihah]

If a large enough majority of people were able to control the direction of the U.S. government to the extreme that you are suggesting, they would not need to secceed, as they would have the power to make the government exactly as they wanted it to be and would therefore not have to leave because they were unhappy with it.

What if the way "they wanted it to be" was that all the States should become independent? It is not the first time in the history of the world that that has happened. What makes you think it could not happen in the US? What makes you think that the people who have signed those petitions could not increase in number so as to become a potent force?

Also, there is no logical reason for a president, per your example, to work to get himself elected on the platform that he will then allow 100% of his supporters to leave the country. Like i said, it would be political suicide.

Already answered I think. If that sentiment became prevalent enough, a leader could arise and be elected precisely on that platform, with the commitment to bring it about. You wouldn't even need a President with that kind of agenda. Congress can amend the Constitution with a large enough majority to make it do what they want, such as allowing the States to secede by declaring independence subject to a free vote, without the federal government having the power to do anything about it.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

We've already had states try to secede and it didn't work out too well.

[thesometimesaint]

What if the way "they wanted it to be" was that all the States should become independent? It is not the first time in the history of the world that that has happened. What makes you think it could not happen in the US? What makes you think that the people who have signed those petitions could not increase in number so as to become a potent force?

Already answered I think. If that sentiment became prevalent enough, a leader could arise and be elected precisely on that platform, with the commitment to bring it about. You wouldn't even need a President with that kind of agenda. Congress can amend the Constitution with a large enough majority to make it do what they want, such as allowing the States to secede by declaring independence subject to a free vote, without the federal government having the power to do anything about it.

It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States ratifying or a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution. The former has happened only 27 times in the last 225 years with nearly half happening soon after ratification. The latter has happened only once and that is when we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and proposed the Constitution.

[mathonihah]

It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States ratifying or a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution. The former has happened only 27 times in the last 225 years with nearly half happening soon after ratification. The latter has happened only once and that is when we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and proposed the Constitution.

Agreed. I am not saying that it is likely, I am saying that it is possible.

[thesometimesaint]

Sure in the ultimate sense. We are a democratically elected republican form of government with a written Constitution. If we refuse to be a governable people that by definition eliminates government. The down side is that people will chose bad government every time over no government.

[mathonihah]

Sure in the ultimate sense. We are a democratically elected republican form of government with a written Constitution. If we refuse to be a governable people that by definition eliminates government. The down side is that people will chose bad government every time over no government.

Cession does not mean no government. It means no Federal government.

[thesometimesaint]

Cession technically means yielding to another. West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the time of the Civil War. It remains an open question as to what level such secession could occur to. Could a state secede from the CSA, or how about a section of a state, or individual plantation? Since a function of the Federal Government is to control commerce between the States. How effective could such control be with States or even regions of States willing to fight over trade?

[bluebell]

What if the way "they wanted it to be" was that all the States should become independent? It is not the first time in the history of the world that that has happened. What makes you think it could not happen in the US? What makes you think that the people who have signed those petitions could not increase in number so as to become a potent force?

Already answered I think. If that sentiment became prevalent enough, a leader could arise and be elected precisely on that platform, with the commitment to bring it about. You wouldn't even need a President with that kind of agenda. Congress can amend the Constitution with a large enough majority to make it do what they want, such as allowing the States to secede by declaring independence subject to a free vote, without the federal government having the power to do anything about it.

Like i said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[bluebell]

Bluebell, I think an idealist could work himself in such a position. Someobody committed to letting the states go their own way could become President simply to allow that to happen.

It's not at all likely though.

It could happen, of course. Anything could happen-it's a hypothetical discussion and all so all what-if's are fair game. Some assumptions are more logical than others though, and I don't personally believe that argument is very logical.

[Stargazer]

Stargazer:

From Wiki...The Philippines has a small grassroots movement for U.S. statehood^{[citation needed]} . Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change.^[17][18] As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines.^[19] Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there will be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state; or at the least, an American territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.^[20][21]

Various suggestions for Philippine statehood have included its entry as a whole or the partial entry of the westernized north, leaving the predominantly Muslim parts of Mindanao to form its own country (see Moro National Liberation Front) or join Indonesia^{[citation needed]}. The movement initially had a significant impact during the early American colonial period;^[18] It is no longer a mainstream movement,^[22] but is a small social movement that gains interest and talk in that nation.^[23][24]

That's very interesting! For all that I am constantly on patrol at Wikipedia you'd think I would have run into this already, but I hadn't! Thanks for posting that.

[TAO]

It could happen, of course. Anything could happen-it's a hypothetical discussion and all so all what-if's are fair game. Some assumptions are more logical than others though, and I don't personally believe that argument is very logical.

How is it illogical? Unlikely I'll give you. But how is it illogical to become the leader of a country to prevent military action against your specific part of the country because of it's actions?

[TAO]

TAO:

We've already had states try to secede and it didn't work out too well.

And we seceded from Britain, and that worked out fine.

Secession attempts sometimes work, and sometimes don't. They'd be much harder today due to the weapons and technology involved, unless done peacefully, which I view as unlikely (and also imho, secession is very undesirable).

[bluebell]

How is it illogical? Unlikely I'll give you. But how is it illogical to become the leader of a country to prevent military action against your specific part of the country because of it's actions?

I was talking about Mathoniha's argument that 90% of the country would work to elect officials just so they could secceed (because if they had that kind of power, why would they need to secceed, as well as, if they had that kind of power and they detested the U.S. government, why would they work within the legal system to get permission to leave?) and that elected officials would work to get elected just so that all of their support (including financial support) could abandon them, and another government, much more powerful and much wealthier than what would be left in the U.S. could set up shop right next door.

I don't think those two things are logical.

Edited November 28, 2012 by bluebell

[thesometimesaint]

And we seceded from Britain, and that worked out fine.

Secession attempts sometimes work, and sometimes don't. They'd be much harder today due to the weapons and technology involved, unless done peacefully, which I view as unlikely (and also imho, secession is very undesirable).

Without going into Colonial England's politics here in America. The British sure didn't think so in both 1776 and 1812 when they burned our Capital. From the ideological standpoint the American Revolution was fought and over before the first shot was fired. England wasn't about to let us go without a fight, and we were more that willing to accommodate them.

All that is besides point, and just historical fact. Unsuccessful Revolutions/secessions are a dime a dozen. The ones we tend to remember are the ones that are successful. My main point is that there is no provision in the US Constitution for secession. The only way is through armed conflict, and every government has the right to protect itself.

[Saints Alive]

TSS:

I disagree, given the right circumstance, I think it is possible for a state to peacefully secede. I can even think of scenarios where it would be beneficial to both the state and the Federal government. To say that the only way is through armed conflict is inaccurate.

[thesometimesaint]

TSS:

I disagree, given the right circumstance, I think it is possible for a state to peacefully secede. I can even think of scenarios where it would be beneficial to both the state and the Federal government. To say that the only way is through armed conflict is inaccurate.

Our history says otherwise.

[Stargazer]

It takes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the States ratifying or a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution. The former has happened only 27 times in the last 225 years with nearly half happening soon after ratification. The latter has happened only once and that is when we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and proposed the Constitution.

And that is a good point to bring up in this context as well.

As has been said, Texas v. White and Lincoln's 1st inaugral address established quite clearly that there is no such thing as secession (at least legally), and as Lincoln suggested, only a successful rebellion (i.e. war) could accomplish it illegally -- which would put the secession into "de facto" vs. "de jure" territory.

But upon further consideration I believe I can say that even if a state successfully seceded ("de facto"), the United States still couldn't legally cut it loose! This is because while there is a provision in the Constitution for adding states to the Union, there is no provision for removing them. It would require an amendment to the Constitution to allow the United States to let a state go.

[Saints Alive]

Our history says otherwise.

Which proves what? Are you refusing to even acknowledge the possibility of a state peacefully leaving the union? Edited November 28, 2012 by Saints Alive