I would say of their own volition no. To secede I believe they could petition and have a national referendum. I say this because states joined the nation freely and formed somthing new. Without putting before the people that are leaving and staying rights are being infringed upon.
I guess "should have" is the key phrase here, because the Supremes have ruled they _don't_ have the right. The court would have to re-visit the issue. I've heard some Texans would love to secede, and haven't some South Carolina officials made noises about it? I can't imagine any would actually vote to secede, but the school books would look different without Texas having such an impact on textbook selection.
Being a native Tennessean who currently lives in Alabama, but has also lived in Mississippi and Georgia, I can only say, "yes, we have the right to secede". There is nothing in the US Constitution that forbids it, and that means, it is left to the States.
John brings up an excellent point, the last strife only proved which side had more bullets and bodies.
Given the geographic and military distribution in the nation, today, the same conflict would have a much different outcome.
I guess "should have" is the key phrase here, because the Supremes have ruled they _don't_ have the right. The court would have to re-visit the issue.
Although I understand this from a practical point of view, in my political philosophy, rights are not determined by a court or a constitution. We either have rights or we don't regardless of what the powers that be say.
Enforcing them, however, is a different matter....
The Conch Republic (Key West) seceded from Florida, on April 23, 1982. It declared war on the U.S., then immediately surrendered and asked for billions of dollars in foreign aid.
11 comments:
I thought we settled that issue during The Recent Unpleasantness.
That only demonstrated which side was militarily stronger.
I'd sorta like to encourage a few to secede...
I would say of their own volition no. To secede I believe they could petition and have a national referendum. I say this because states joined the nation freely and formed somthing new. Without putting before the people that are leaving and staying rights are being infringed upon.
I guess "should have" is the key phrase here, because the Supremes have ruled they _don't_ have the right. The court would have to re-visit the issue. I've heard some Texans would love to secede, and haven't some South Carolina officials made noises about it? I can't imagine any would actually vote to secede, but the school books would look different without Texas having such an impact on textbook selection.
Being a native Tennessean who currently lives in Alabama, but has also lived in Mississippi and Georgia, I can only say, "yes, we have the right to secede". There is nothing in the US Constitution that forbids it, and that means, it is left to the States.
John brings up an excellent point, the last strife only proved which side had more bullets and bodies.
Given the geographic and military distribution in the nation, today, the same conflict would have a much different outcome.
That sounds like you're assuming the military in a given region would align with the region and not the nation.
D & S wrote:
I guess "should have" is the key phrase here, because the Supremes have ruled they _don't_ have the right. The court would have to re-visit the issue.
Although I understand this from a practical point of view, in my political philosophy, rights are not determined by a court or a constitution. We either have rights or we don't regardless of what the powers that be say.
Enforcing them, however, is a different matter....
Yes, if the South seceded now, there's no guarantee that the resident military forces would support their geographic location.
Actually, this Question of the Day was spurred by not any Southern secessionist movement, but the San Francisco Bay area secessionist movement.
The Conch Republic (Key West) seceded from Florida, on April 23, 1982. It declared war on the U.S., then immediately surrendered and asked for billions of dollars in foreign aid.
In general I would say, No... but I would make an exception for California.
Post a Comment